UPDATED: Barack Obama Used Tax Payer Money To Have Capital Hill Police Walk His Mistress’s Dog
Prodded by cassandra’s comment linking to John Cole, I decided to take another trip around the Delaware wingnut-o-sphere and report on which of the brave wingnuts in our midst think that it is worth mentioning that “a Republican front-runner FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT has clearly played fast and loose with the public’s money to hide/finance his extramarital dalliances.”
Hube…Nada. (A post trashing Bill Clinton though.)
Dave Burris…Crickets Chirping (surprising given his Romney love.)
Paul Smith…Zilch. (and I thoght Catholics were anti-adultery. Silly me. )
Ryan S…nothing.
Oh well. IOKIYAR, everybody.
——————————————————————————————————
TPM has the full story on how Obama used taxpayer money to facilitate his adultery. According to Capital Hill accounting records, Obama used an expense account to…
— pay for the 11 tryst visits to the Cayman Islands.
— pay for hotel and other expenses for Senate staff aides — in addition to the security detail — who also went with the Senator on the tryst weekends.
— Obama’s mistress’s NYPD-chauffeured trips (without Obama) to visit her parents in Pennsylvania, 130 miles outside DC.
— Capital Hill police owned undercover Dodge to drive his mistress around the city.
— Capital Hill police-owned undercover Dodge to drive his mistress’s 1friends and family around the city even when she wasn’t in the car.
— A Capital Hill police security detail for his mistress, personally approved by Harry Reid.
— Capital Hill police used to walk Nathan’s dog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Honestly, where is the wingnut outrage?
Face it, Rudy’s misuse of public funds to screw his mistress is less important than the possibility that Obama got Muslim cooties in fifth grade.
The article linked to does not mention Obama. Sounds like sh** to me.
Josh, what name do you think could be substituted for Obama?
Now maybe that the secret is out, he won’t have to answer his phone every time she calls, even if he is speaking at the time…..
She’s got no hold over him now…….
Apparently y’all missed this. Not every one of your wingnut friends let Mr Giuliani’s actions pass without comment.
From John Cole — an ex-repub (currently Independent) currently disgusted with the state of his former party — the best assessment of the relative silence from winguttia there is.
Jason,
What you’re forgetting is the GOP is the party of Jesus. By the mere identification of Giuliani as a Republican, he is immune from these unsavory and vicious attacks you’ve put forth!!! Repent!
Dana,
You call that a comment on the incident? The caveat is that the author of the post is “no friend of Republicans.” So your commentary is basically “consider the source.”
Way to put it to Rudy! That will leave a mark.
Guliani’s mistress and NYC funds; Huckabee’s wife’s gift registry; Clinton’s incredible powers of investment; Edwards’ scurrilous ambulance-chasing.; Obama’s minister hates white people; back in Texas none of Paul’s close associates were too fond of Jews or Negroes; Mitt never had a fight with his wife over using illegals to trim the hedges; Fred sags because his wrinkles have wrinkles (OK I know its not ethics, but c’mon…)
And even given this, I can’t condemn the Demopublicans for making a travesty out of the presidential race because the national Libertarian Party is essentially auctioning off its nomination to the candidate who raises the most money for the party….
Mr Geek: Just what part of:
did you find ambiguous?
Why people vote on abortion stances is way beyond me….
There are so many other issues that are paramount to the quality of American life. Abortion only affects the person involved and their immediate family, not some guy 1000 miles away, not the stock market, not terrorism in the Middle East and Asia, not the lack of health care in this country, not the sub-prime mortgage problem. But if you read Freakonomics, there is a correlation showing access to abortion drives down crime rates….
Dana,
You don’t support Rudy for lots of reasons, but when it comes to this incident, you downplay the source and say that it is just another straw on the camels already-broken back. So yeah, you have a tsk, tsk on Rudy for this, but it is couched in a consider the source caveat emptor.
Perhaps that is a smackdown, but it seems like a pulled punch to me.