Slums, drugs, and spousal abuse

The sordid tale of Claire McCaskill and the man she credits with "establishing her values"

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

STATE AUDITOR CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-Missouri) has cast herself as a champion of “strong, small town values” in her 2006 challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent. A mere twenty-three days before the election, in a race which could decide control of the Senate, McCaskill has nearly succeeded in hiding the fact that her history, as well as that of her known associates, reveals just the opposite.

In April of 2002, her fourth year as State Auditor, McCaskill married St. Louis businessman Joseph Shepard who, like her, was a veteran of an extremely troubled previous marriage.

At a campaign event this September, which was attended by President Clinton, McCaskill introduced her second husband as one of the “people that make my life work, the people that establish my values on this planet, the people that I love more even than this state I live in.” (video below)

One can only assume that Claire McCaskill knows about her husband’s history of gross domestic violence and spousal abuse – and one can only wonder what part of her “values” that established.


The domestic violence in Shepard’s past is both shocking and repulsive in detail. On February 15, 1998, police were called to then-Mrs. Shepard’s house (the couple had been separated since June of the previous year) by a girlfriend. According to the police report (.pdf file), Mrs. Shepard said of her husband:

Read on.

Joseph entered my home. I told him to leave. He came up to me looking angry. I put my hands up to protect my breasts as they are sore (cancer). He has hit me before in the breast. He grabbed my wrist and arm and pushed me up against the wall & I hit my head & back & he bruised my arms by pinching me.

As distasteful and appalling as that is, it’s nothing compared to what Mrs. Shepard told police, and the Saint Louis Family Court, that she had endured from her husband in the past. Once again, from the police report:

He has tripped me, hit me before (police were called by my daughter), punched my cancer breast, peed on me, pushed me down and slapped me. He now threatens that everything I have is his and I will end up in his low-income housing and he wants to take my things.

This is absolutely appalling, to say the least; the only good that can be said is that Mrs. Shepard was finally able to escape her marriage to the man now responsible for Claire McCaskill’s “values.”

The couple had four adopted children, a fact made possible by Shepard’s serving on the board of the adoption service-providing Children's Home Society of Missouri – and these unfortunate innocents also had to live through Shepard’s unspeakable husband-on-wife abuse.

* * *

SHEPARD’S UNPRINCIPLED PAST DOES NOT STOP with simple spousal assault. A millionaire businessman who is a director, board member or officer in 18 corporations, he has personally financed McCaskill's political career, including providing $1.6 million in the primary phase of her 2004 run for Governor (in which she ousted the Democrat incumbent). According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Shepard’s business history reveals a man who has made his fortune off of taxpayer dollars, by “aggressively [seeking] public subsidies” and reaping spectacular financial reward from rural, low-income housing.

Over 30 years, Shepard became a a slumlord, amassing “a housing empire that, at one point, included nearly 10,000 apartments in 23 states.”

Why low-income housing? Because it is lucrative for extremely wealthy investors, like Shepard, who seek to shield their money from taxation through write offs – and in low-income housing, investors can “write off more money than a project produces, thus claiming a net loss for tax purposes.”

As a result, Shepard's interest in 175 companies is valued at less than $1,000, and he has a stake in 192 companies which supposedly generate less than $201 in annual income.

As State Auditor, McCaskill claims that she has complied with disclosure laws; however, it would be very difficult for an ordinary person to amass a net worth totaling between $13 million and more than $30 million, the couple’s wealth according to a statement she filed with the Senate, on just $201 per month.

There is also the issue of nursing homes – an industry which McCaskill promised to clean up when running for Auditor in 1998. The Missouri State Auditor is responsible for auditing the Department of Health and Senior Services, which regulates the state's nursing home system; Shepard, as luck would have it, happened to own six such businesses. A wife, in charge of auditing an industry in which her husband is a prominent business owner? Sounds like a conflict of interest – unless you’re Claire McCaskill, that is.

When the subject was broached during her 2004 gubernatorial campaign, McCaskill brushed off the idea of conflict of interest by saying that her husband was out of the nursing home business. However, records show he still received $3 million in rent from nursing home companies that year.

Not only that, several of the nursing homes Shepard had operated were repeatedly cited for deficiencies by inspectors or sued with allegations of poor care, sexual abuse or wrongful death at the time of his management. Still no conflict of interest with his wife handling the audit.

Rather, McCaskill maintains that her audit of the industry did not overlap with any period of time when her husband operated nursing homes. Unfortunately, beyond the world of semantics, that’s just not true, as Joseph Shepard still owns the buildings that contain the nursing homes. No word on what McCaskill’s next Houdini-like attempt to escape the facts of this matter will include.

The conflict of interest in McCaskill’s personal and professional dealings with Shepard’s businesses has the potential only to increase should she be elected to the Senate. As the USDA handles low income housing issues, a Senator McCaskill would be in a position to help her husband's slums even more.

* * *

WHETHER OR NOT CLAIRE MCCASKILL KNEW all of the grisly details about her current husband’s sordid and repugnant past when she married him, she is clearly displaying a trend of extremely poor – at best – judgment regarding whom she chooses to associate with, and in what capacity.

Her first marriage, to the late David Exposito, lasted until 1995 – one year after he was arrested on a Kansas City-area gambling boat for possession of marijuana. Both the arrest and the divorce occurred while McCaskill was serving as Jackson County, MO Prosecutor – a fact which opened up McCaskill to some long-deserved, but luckily-avoided, suspicion regarding possible drug use of her own.

This suspicion was piqued when a woman named Ruth Carter, who was working in McCaskill’s Independence, MO office, came under suspicion by the Drug Task Force for possibly “making and selling drugs.” On March 25, 1994, “officers raided [Carter’s] Independence home, where they found Meth in her bedroom and remnants of a lab in the basement,” according to the Kansas City Star.

According to a special report by Kansas City’s KCTV 5 News (video below), “drug investigators began looking into McCaskill just after Carter's arrest, …a detective in Eastern Jackson County asked for FBI help on Claire McCaskill in 1995,… and federal authorities spent 4 years in the mid to late 1990s investigating whether she used illegal drugs." U.S. Attorney Stephen Hill even “took the extraordinary step in late 1997 of authorizing a 'Pen Trap' on McCaskill's home phone to collect the phone numbers of those calling or being called.”


When pressed on this, as well as on her knowledge of the investigations into Ruth Carter and personal friend Anna Wiggins, McCaskill repeatedly gave contradictory answers – especially regarding Wiggins, the investigation of whom McCaskill has claimed to have had no knowledge, in spite of police officers alleging that McCaskill instructed them not to investigate Wiggins, nor to bring her in for questioning.

In response to questions from the Kansas City Star (6/29/04) about the discrepancies between her statements and those of police, McCaskill blamed it all on the cops, saying that she “got along with most police officers,” but that “there are some cowboys, and there were some people that resented the fact that I was the woman in charge and that I had the kind of power I had.”

McCaskill was never prosecuted for drug-related crimes, but that chapter of the story still did not have a happy ending, as, in 2005, her ex-husband Exposito was shot to death in front of a Kansas City day care, the victim of a murder which media reports have linked to drugs.

Connecting the dots over Claire McCaskill’s past is not a difficult task. While a prosecutor, her husband at the time, friend, and employee were arrested for drugs, and she was investigated. While the State Auditor, McCaskill’s husband at this time was heavily invested in spuriously run businesses which fell under her supervision.

With this kind of track record, who will Claire McCaskill choose to consort with next, should she become a Senator – and how will her increasingly poor decisions affect the rest of us, should she ascend to a position of even greater power, influence, and scope?

At a time when the mantra “culture of corruption” is on the lips of every Democrat this side of the Potomac, what will the historically corrupt – both morally and professionally – Claire McCaskill fall into, and with whom will she associate, should the voters of Missouri be so blinded by her “values” act that they actually send her to Washington?

In the vein of the vast feminist support for President Clinton in the face of his publicly known outrageous treatment of women, Liberals from groups like the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and the National Association of Social Workers, to individuals like Clinton himself, have lined up to endorse Claire McCaskill for Senate – proving, for Democrats, that a person’s professional dealings, associations, and personal life can be almost limitlessly corrupt, so long as their politics are “correct.”

Her website says "In the tradition of Harry Truman, Claire McCaskill means it when she says: 'The Buck Stops Here’.” Well, the buck does stop here. How is a woman who says that her husband, a man with such a prolific personal history of violence towards women and such a professional history as a slumlord, is responsible for “establish[ing her] values on this planet,” going to stand up for real values in Washington – and what can we expect from her when she reaches an office from which she can legislate the values she learned from Joseph Shepard?

« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part OneComments (20) | Trouble in SearchlightComments (21) »
Slums, drugs, and spousal abuse 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Too bad the main stream media can't seem to bring itself to do similar investigative reporting.

I long for the days when I could think of the legacy media as something other than the biased liberal media wing of the Democratic Party.

But if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...and in this case, leaves droppings like a duck...Well...

See The World In HinzSight!

but I would kind of assume she didn't know about his history of domestic violence when she married him. Moreover, if he still behaves that way, wouldn't that cause most voters to sympathize with her. I'm not sure exposing this side of her personal life is a boon to Talent, who I dearly hope wins this election.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

I normally enjoy reading your stuff but this piece is stooping to the level of the Dumbocrats.
I don't care whom a democratic candidate is married to or what their history is..I would'nt vote for one based on the party they belong to alone.
I think we should hold ourselves above the petty,personal attacks that the Left is famous for.
Just my opinion....Keep those great articles coming tho.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

You call the Democrats by a childish, schoolyard name, in the process of talking about 'stooping to the level' of somebody.

Beautifully ironic support for this post.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

This is a little out of bounds for my tastes, too.

This pretty pointless, and on the same level as MN Democrats Exposed (MDE), a local blog run by a MN conservative who just makes himself look like a fool with his stupid "undercover work" work that "exposes" the DFL (MN's Dem party).

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

I don't see this as a merely attack piece.
Claire has the drug questions still looming around her and the conflict of interest issues are quite serious.
Now, whether or not her husband is a wife beater doesn't much matter to me. She's married to him, I'm not. But it does beg the question of just exactly what are her values.
A republican would NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER, get such a pass.
That is all.
_______________________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

We have a wife beater running for Congress as a Republican here in MN-05. Luckily, the DFL nominee has strong ties to CAIR, hate groups, and terrorism. It looks like Independence Party candidate Tammy Lee (who is endorsed by the outgoing Dem representative) might win because both the other candidates are despicable.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

The Republicans have as much chance of winning that district as the Libertarians do.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Despite having threatened his wife with a shotgun at a dinner party, and being a horrible husband in all sorts of other ways. I have to say I was so disappointed that we got an all-around jerk like Kuhl as a replacement for Amo Houghton, who, though I often disagreed with him, was a real class act.

however, if it remains buried in her closet, McCaskill stands a better chance or being elected. Missouri doesn't deserve that. WE don't deserve that.

While I did not enjoy learnign these things about McCaskill, I think it would be a tragedy if that wretch were elected.

It's not a petty, personal attack. It's a question of character.

my 'delicate sensibilities' seem to be inflamed earlier than most. That said, I thought this was a superb piece. The domestic violence part may have been unnecessary, but the remainder painted a picture of someone who seems the antithesis of the anti-corruption crusade the Democrats claim they are waging.

I would have expected to see gutter argumentation on DailyKos (if I stooped to reading it), not here.

"In 1994, Fred Thompson was locked in a Senate campaign against an increasingly desperate opponent, Jim Cooper. During a debate, in response to what Thompson thought was an unfair attack, the once-and-future actor said in his most authoritative voice, "Jim, it's one thing to lose an election; it's another thing to lose your honor." See http://redstatemobile.com/node/15116

The point here is that McCaskill is marketing herself as the "values" candidate. That was her choice--one she made because she thought it would play well in MO. What this piece demonstrates is that this is false marketing.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

McCaskill wants to be in the United States Senate - to vote on your judges, to vote on your taxes, to oversee your government - she is not worthy of it.

This is an excellent post.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Labeling Mrs. Shepard "unprincipled" because of alleged physical abuse by a man she hadn't even MET at the time it occurred? That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

In fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of several of your arguments. The whole article's theme of "guilt by association" just doesn't ring true.

Especially the drug stuff. How can we condemn someone simply for being married to a man who smoked pot, when we have a President in his second term who has all but admitted snorting cocaine himself? I know several people who smoke pot -- I don't believe knowing them affects my personal values whatsoever.

And if the authorities were so convinced she was involved with illegal drugs, then how come the "extraordinary step" of tapping her phone didn't lead to any prosecution?

Finally, yes, I agree that her husband sounds like a money-grubbing businessman. But a "slumlord"? Investing in many businesses, making a heap of money, and involving yourself with companies that don't do the best work for humanity is hardly the worst thing we've seen in Washington. If a history of putting profits ahead of business ethics truly made someone unelectable, then you'd have to toss half of the current administration out of office.

This whole article is just weak.

Unless you swing between Democratic and Stalinist, I doubt you swing much with your votes.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If you have no problem with the slums he runs, maybe you'd like to move into one someday.

Reading comprehension not being your strong point, your Dem Talking Points about the President notwithstanding, your disingenuous screen name is enough to do you in!

See The World In HinzSight!

may have been wanting, but it is not troll territory. There was effort, albeit meager effort, to forge a coherent thought.

Labeling Mrs. Shepard "unprincipled" because of alleged physical abuse by a man she hadn't even MET at the time it occurred? That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

Did you write this as you read? It looks like this is a response to the first paragraph or so.

Especially the drug stuff. How can we condemn someone simply for being married to a man who smoked pot, when we have a President in his second term who has all but admitted snorting cocaine himself?

Thus does "not admitting" become "all but admitting." I mourn that they no longer teach rhetoric in schools.

And if the authorities were so convinced she was involved with illegal drugs, then how come the "extraordinary step" of tapping her phone didn't lead to any prosecution?

Sometimes, even with evidence, they don't prosecute. You won't see it on Law and Order, but it's true. I know, I know, it's not on TV, so it must not be true, but take me on faith this once.

Finally, yes, I agree that her husband sounds like a money-grubbing businessman. But a "slumlord"? Investing in many businesses, making a heap of money, and involving yourself with companies that don't do the best work for humanity is hardly the worst thing we've seen in Washington. If a history of putting profits ahead of business ethics truly made someone unelectable, then you'd have to toss half of the current administration out of office.

I take back my first comment. You neither read the first nor the last paragraphs.

This whole article is just weak.

This comment is worse. And to think, you registered just to show off pre-2nd grade reading skills.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Frankly, I'm unimpressed by your responses. I read this site all the time, and I kinda expected better from you guys.

Any serious reader will see important gaps missing from the above article. It's moslty conjecture, some of which is based on hearsay. A lot of smoke, but no fire. For instance...

"A wife, in charge of auditing an industry in which her husband is a prominent business owner? Sounds like a conflict of interest – unless you’re Claire McCaskill, that is."

I'll admit it -- that sounds bad. But what happened? What did the audit find? Was her husband's company even part of that audit? Or was it just a general audit of the entire industry?

Or this...

"...in 2005, her ex-husband Exposito was shot to death in front of a Kansas City day care, the victim of a murder which media reports have linked to drugs."

By "media reports" you link to a three paragraph blurb on the website of a local news channel. That's it? And even in the blurb, nothing is confirmed. It's a guess.

This is not journalism; it's theory.

As I stated before, this whole article is guilt by association, and seems like the writer is grasping at straws. I learned nothing from this entry about Mrs. Shepard's personal values, because most of the article is about OTHER PEOPLE.

And by the way... I read redstate, drudge, instapundit, andrew sullivan, huffpo, and TPM every day, but until now have never posted on any of them. If that makes me a troll, so be it.

As to my political leanings, screw you. You have no idea who I am or how I vote.

Let's see if you can do better than calling me names. I dare you to engage me.

and then your last four sentences dropped into the third grade!

See The World In HinzSight!

and then your last four sentences dropped into the third grade!

Translation: I don't like what you say so I'm going to call you a child.

A few points:

(1) The use of a Moulitsasism is a bannable offense. Your next use of profanity is your last.

(2) You don't have enough credibility to take personal shots. See the second sentence above.

(3) No one cares who or what you read.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I have no idea what this Thomas guy is talking about.

Seriously.

Can someone help me out here?

"this Thomas guy" has the power to pull your posting privileges, so if you want to keep them intact, you should Heed His Words. In particular: no obscenities, or anything even close-- if your local news anchor wouldn't use it, don't use it here. (Hint: words 6 & 7 of your next-to-last paragraph back there count as such.) Also, challenging him or daring him to do anything is a Bad Idea. Think about whether you'd dare or taunt a police officer and manage to not spend the night in jail.

In short: choose your words carefully, if you would like the continued ability to choose them here.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

So, wait, this Thomas guy gets to call me names for no good because he's the "sherriff" of this town, and I can't fight back?

Since my first post, which was restrained and certainly not personally insulting, I've been called "Stalinist," "disingenuous," incoherent, and a a pre-second grader. Now I'm told that it's the ADMIN that's been calling me stupid.

And yet I'm the one being threatened with a ban?

What kind of a dog and pony show do you guys run around here?

So, wait, this Thomas guy gets to call me names for no good because he's the "sherriff" of this town, and I can't fight back?

I'm curious as to what names I called you.

Shoot back at will at me. I don't care. Don't shoot at other commenters.

Since my first post, which was restrained and certainly not personally insulting, I've been called "Stalinist," "disingenuous," incoherent, and a a pre-second grader. Now I'm told that it's the ADMIN that's been calling me stupid.

I didn't call you a pre second grader. I noted your reading ability, correctly, it would appear.

What kind of a dog and pony show do you guys run around here?

The kind with stationary targets.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I figured it out!

The reason why no one wants to have a conversation about the article about Mrs. Shepard... the reason you're all attacking me personally instead of offering your own ideas... the reason you're threating me with a ban (as if that's a threat)...

It's because you've lost.

You CAN'T engage in a meaningful conversation about this article, because it's indefensible.

It's just like your peeps in Washington. When someone tries to argue a point against them, they label him a "loony liberal" and dismiss him outright, rather than fighting back with ideas.

You can't fight back. Because you're scared, you're weak, and you're wrong.

The troll has won.

Means that even you want us to ban you at this point. Hey, everybody wins.

Blam.

Moe

PS: Be sure to send us whatever "They banned ME!" diary you end up reading. We collect 'em.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

you would probably know all about the Life's Not Fair™ principle already.

Sadly (for you), I'm pretty sure you're gonna find out about it soon enough - first hand.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

up thread you start out by saying

I read this site all the time, and I kinda expected better from you guys.

Then claim ignorance of the rules and who is who and how things work?

Troll meat, that's all you are!

See The World In HinzSight!

1. Yes he does.

2. You can fight back, just not for long.

3. I assume you consider 1st grade your senior year.

4. It appears so. Unfortunately for you, Thomas has proven to be an accurate judge of stupid.

5. And yet, evidently.

6. A very high quality one in which the dogs and ponies are expected not to soil the stage.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

What we get instead is fiction as journalism.


John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

This:

"Connecting the dots over Claire McCaskill’s past is not a difficult task. While a prosecutor, her husband at the time, friend, and employee were arrested for drugs, and she was investigated. While the State Auditor, McCaskill’s husband at this time was heavily invested in spuriously run businesses which fell under her supervision."

is the money graf - the story he told us the other story so he could tell us this one.
Values or character voters will find thought provoking issues in this graf. Those who don’t find values or character important…well, what can I say w/o embarrassing you?

There is also the issue of nursing homes – an industry which McCaskill promised to clean up when running for Auditor in 1998. The Missouri State Auditor is responsible for auditing the Department of Health and Senior Services, which regulates the state's nursing home system; Shepard, as luck would have it, happened to own six such businesses. A wife, in charge of auditing an industry in which her husband is a prominent business owner? Sounds like a conflict of interest – unless you’re Claire McCaskill, that is.

Does the State Auditor actually run Department of Health and Senior Services? I would think that the auditor looks at how the DHSS is run and can then report problems to the governor, but doesn't actually have the authority to change anything. So, it isn't McCaskill auditing her husband's business, it is McCaskill auditing the department that audit's her husband's business.

The first thing you see on the State Auditor page is this:

The Department of Health and Senior Services' compliance with its statutory responsibilities has declined significantly from previous audits. We noted that 58 facilities received neither a full nor an interim inspection in fiscal year 2005, and in fact, some of these facilities have been cited repeatedly for the same deficiencies. Also, state surveyors tend to cite fewer deficiencies when federal inspectors are absent from the process, with only 15 to 20 percent of the deficiencies cited by the federal inspectors also cited by state surveyors.

Only 28% of recommendations from previous audits have been implemented. Conditions sited in prior audits that continue include:

It sounds to me like she is trying to get DHSS to be tougher on the nursing homes, which hardly sounds like someone suffering from a conflict of interest.

When the subject was broached during her 2004 gubernatorial campaign, McCaskill brushed off the idea of conflict of interest by saying that her husband was out of the nursing home business. However, records show he still received $3 million in rent from nursing home companies that year.

There is a big difference between owning a nursing home and owning a building that a nursing home rents from you.

This hit piece is really low...

Can't wait to read RS on Nov 8th. Will there be a suicide watch alert?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I luv you guys. I'm with ya. But c'mon. This ain't gonna work. The Liberal media completely ignored the HUGE story first broken here at Red-State, of the ACORNers and their fraudalant voter registration effort.

Not a peep about this in the media anywhere's with the sole exception of Rush Limbaugh who mentioned it last week. Not even Fox picked up on the story.

And the story had legs, cause we soon learned that ACORN was registering dead people in North St. Louis.

Again, largely ignored.

If the media are not going to even pick up on this huge Clair McCaskill problem, what makes you think they will cover this?

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The husband of a powerful Democratic politician that abuses women…sounds like ol’ Joe Shepard is Presidential material on the Democratic side.

As a Republican, I feel we have hit a new all-time low. I am sick of the snide comments and nasty ads we have on tv in this election. Nobody knows what happens behind closed doors. The stuff that happens between a husband and wife is private and should remain that way. I am glad when someone who has been abused reports it, but I know that sometimes either side can embellish the facts. Who really knows if Mr. Shepherd's ex is telling the truth? The people being really hurt by this type of report are the kids. Ms. McCaskill has 3 kids who just lost their father. He was murdered. We don't know why really. You can suppose anything you want. Mr. Shepherd's kids are now young adults. How do you suppose these reports make them feel? Reading dirt about their parents would feel pretty crappy. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Everyone has dirt in their background. I am not saying spousal abuse is ok, but that this case is not proven and I believe in America it is still Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
As far as the "slumlord" remarks..... Have you ever been inside any of Mr. Shepherds rental units? What if they are nice, clean rental units? What if Mr. Shepherd is a good guy and believes that everyone deserves housing they can afford?
Don't believe any of this stuff until you go out and see the facts for yourself.

Speaking of facts, how do we know your first three words aren't an election-time lie?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Let's be as generous as we should be KansasSunFlower is making an important point about why the Republicans have the moral authority over the Dhimms. Let's not let election-time paranoia break up the family here. If the first three words were a lie, then making the decent point about Innosense Until Proven Guilty is a pretty strange motivation to go about doing it.

(^My apologies for the above - not the most clearly worded sentence in the world but i hope you get what I mean... long day at work, big headache.)

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine

Because I don't lie. Neil, this is the kind of attitude that I am talking about. I have been a proud Republican probably longer than you have been alive. That is why it is sad to me to have such mistrust, and mud-slinging going on.

We just get suspicious of people who have only registered an account within the last hour and come on to pee on us.

your post reads like a very young person. You say things like: Reading dirt about their parents would feel pretty crappy. That came from the mind of a tennager, or at best 20-something.
You say: What if they are nice, clean rental units? What if Mr. Shepherd is a good guy and believes that everyone deserves housing they can afford? What if, what if what if?

You might be a proud Republican...but you're a young one!

See The World In HinzSight!

If indeed you are as you say...

welcome!

If not...tell Claire we all say HI!

Good evening ladies and gents~!

As long as we're pouncing on someone for being married to a wife abuser, is someone here going to likewise write a post to speak out against a candidate who actually *is* one, and seeking higher office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Sherwood

Or does he not count since he was only an "mistress" abuser?

~Just wondering ;)

I certainly hope you're enjoying the second day of your RedState Experience™.

Here's a suggestion,

In the short time you have left here, why don't you write a diary story showing the similarities between these two gentlemen.

Perhaps then you can demonstrate how it is Mr. Sherwood actually *is* a mistress abuser - seeing as how said mistress decided to not press charges for abuse when presented with the opportunity to so do.

Pretty please, it'll certainly be a fun read.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

In the short time you have left here, why don't you write a diary story showing the similarities between these two gentlemen.

Oh, you mean so it can be 'weeded' out like this?:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/blogosphere/theblogproject_0

And what pray tell might you mean about "the short time I have left here"?

You guys are going to ban me for pointing out the irony of jumping a candidate for what her spouse did in a previous marriage when saying nothing about what another actual candidate (not his spouse) did during his current marriage?

Perhaps then you can demonstrate how it is Mr. Sherwood actually is a mistress abuser - seeing as how said mistress decided to not press charges for abuse when presented with the opportunity to so do.

Oh gosh darnit me, I missed where Mrs Shepard did that, drat! Please point me to that if you would. That or anywhere stating how many millions it took to shut her up, TIA!

Pretty please, it'll certainly be a fun read.

As will your answers to this post!

A man of your intellectual stature will surely perceive that we talk a lot more about Senate races than we do House races around here - and a truly perceptive person would pick up on the fact that we're Republican activists with all that entails. As it happens, you're in luck and we have covered Mr. Sherwood's buffoonery:

PA-10 is in the northeast corner of the state, north of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. The seat is currently held by one-term(UPDATE: LHW) four-term incumbent Don Sherwood. This seat should be one of the safest Republican seats in the whole country, but Sherwood has made quite a mess of his personal life. In a district this rural, that has really hurt him in the polls. Despite these problems, Sherwood was still up in April of this year, but more recent polling shows him in trouble. This race could be significant because it involves a district full of people who really don't want to vote for a Democrat, but may be disgruntled enough with the personal indiscretions of their Congressman to have no choice. In other words, this may predict the larger pull of the Foley effect somewhat.

You guys are going to ban me for pointing out the irony of jumping a candidate for what her spouse did in a previous marriage when saying nothing about what another actual candidate (not his spouse) did during his current marriage?

I'm not going to ban you when you're doing such a fine job of making a donkey's rear out of yourself by making a bunch of unfounded accusations about people you know nothing about. At this point, I'd almost buy you TV time.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

The "almost" was a nice touch!

Is this cute? Apparently someone wasn't confident enough to allow me a reply here in this fine, conjecture-ridden thread last night. Nowhere previous to now had I cursed or called anyone a name in this forum, and yet when I tried to reply to the last poster here last night, this is what I got:

http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bannedin2posts2ay6.jpg

No wonder you're party is imploding. I bet your base doesn't even approve of the stifled discourse & user inactivation going on in this thread. Way to represent the GOP, guys.

Seriously, you showed me! (snicker)

Later, ya free speech hating, ban button abusing meatheads.

As many easy shots I have from other posts here in this thread that I could easily take, I'll waste no further time with you non-debating post nazi's who's intellectual fortitude consists of the various ways to call someone stupid or a troll, instead of actually disputing the points made (and allowing a response)

I thought of a new name for your forum btw ~~> RedFace.com

Oh, and don't worry lovies, I'll bill ya later ;)

Love,

Your Political Boogeyman,
~c1

(And no, I'm not waiting for what seems to have been a temporary ban last night to turn permanent.. You guys wanna insulate yourselves from opposing viewpoints, you go right ahead. I have no time to wait around for you to creep out from under the coffee table every time I confront you with debate points that make you uncomfortable)

P.S. Oh, and BTW? I'm a chick.

Dare ya to leave this up =)

1. As I pointed out last night, we'd alredy dealt with Sherwood, so you had no point, as you would have known if you had actually read the site. You had no "opposing viewpoint" that we were interested in silencing, you had had a dumb and factually challenged comment that I felt fine leaving up, complete with an illustration of just how stupid it was.

2. If we banned you, it wouldn't say that your account doesn't exist. When you tried to post, just nothing would show up. We've had database flukes over the last couple days. The fact that you can post here tonight shows conclusively that you weren't banned on any basis (we don't have "temporary bans" here - you're either banned or not). So, in two comments on this site, you've shown yourself to be just as "reality based" as the rest of your "community." Why would we be interested in getting rid of that? Like I said, I'm thinking of buying you airtime.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

I wasn't as foolish as you when I was in my youth, but I was as impulsive. Get control over it or you will make a fool of yourself somewhere that it matters. (I assume you are dating/married and employed/student.)

Just quit talking so much and listen a little bit. There is a lot to learn and you don't know it all. Passion is a good thing, and occasionally righteous anger is merited. Just not all the time. Tone it down and you won't look so stupid so often.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service