| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Spoiled Brat, I Mean Failed Democrat Pol, Sues Critics Over Election Loss |
| 2011-10-26 |
| There's nothing quite like a politician scorned. You've obviously never scorned a woman. When voters in Ohio's 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody. It's not fair! I didn't get a trophy. They told me everybody wins when I was in Grammer School! Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his "loss of livelihood," Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It was a bunch of girls spreading rumors! First un-manly act today. I bet he drinks a generic lite beer, too... During the 2010 elections the Susan B. Anthony List engaged in a campaign to identify and call out a group of allegedly anti-abortion-rights members of Congress who provided the margin that allowed President Barack Obama's reform of the nation's healthcare system to get through the U.S. House of Representatives. The Susan B. Anthony List said their vote in favor of the law, which did not include any pro-life protections, amounted to a betrayal of their pro-life principles. See! Scorn a woman, betrayal is damnation! According to Driehaus, who was one of that group, what the Susan B. Anthony List said in its public communications amounted to a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat. Amazingly, rather than laugh the suit out of court U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward. Any surprise there? Bueler? Anybody? There is lots more including the fact that Judge Black is the former President and |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #12 At least they didn't play "guess that Party..." |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-10-26 15:42 |
| #11 As far as precedents go what's to stop this SOB from suing his opponent on the same grounds? The Dems become more despicable by the day. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-10-26 15:38 |
| #10 "The people have spoken - the bastards!" |
| Posted by: SteveS 2011-10-26 15:16 |
| #9 Now that is a rather nasty insult to women there Rob. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-10-26 14:51 |
#8 You've obviously never scorned a woman. I defy you to find a difference between Driehaus and a woman. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2011-10-26 14:19 |
| #7 A narcissist who lost the spotlight. Delicious! |
| Posted by: gromky 2011-10-26 13:36 |
| #6 So we will go through this horsesh*t legal procceding, using up court time, money, etc. I would imagine that Driehaus will go for a judge only lawsuit. He will win, then it will go to appeal, with the defendant posting bond for some ungodly amount while the appeal process drags on. Nice gaming of the system you got there, Traitorous Dems. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2011-10-26 13:13 |
| #5 There's more going on here than a tantrum. Driehaus's suit is breaking new legal ground and may already be having a very chilling effect on political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections and criminalizes what is at least a difference of opinion. And it's curious that the case has not received more attention from the national press. What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-26 11:06 |
| #4 Another outrage brought to us by the Donks. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-10-26 10:53 |
| #3 Can we just dump him in the river with 30lbs of weights strapped to his legs instead when he loses an election? Would be easier and far less whiny. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-10-26 10:38 |
| #2 Does the one term loser still receive a lifetime pension and free healthcare? |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2011-10-26 10:15 |
| #1 "loss of livelihood," The basic concept of an 'election' [that is in the classical western concept] implies explicitly that there is no guarantee of 'livelihood'/employment. It is an obvious symptom on display here that Mr. Driehaus (D-OH), believes in the non-western 'representative for life' concept of government. Not that the concept "for life" seems alien to so many he associates with. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-10-26 08:47 |