I think if the GOP wants spotters on the ground that they should pick less conspicuous folks. That meat-head is instantly recognizable. Of course, if Matt really is starting to lean left, then we should welcome him with open arms. Sometimes your most fervent critic can end up being your biggest fan. It looks like Rich may indeed have a new big fan.
Of course, it’s not the only time Naugle was spotted at a Democratic event. This post is pretty much one big excuse for me to post this again:
Here’s yet another story registered Republican Joe Hallett has based on his own prior reporting about John Kasich that he’s, so far, failed to mention.
In the July 15, 2005 edition of the Columbus Dispatch, Joe Hallet reported that Republicans were trying to draft John Kasich to run for Governor. Kasich said he wouldn’t challenge Betty Montgomery or Jim Petro… basically, he’d only run to stop Ken Blackwell to get the nomination:
Kasich has told political allies he won’t run against Petro or Montgomery, whom he considers friends. He would, however, take on Blackwell, whose fiscal proposals Kasich views as irresponsible, sources said.
So in 2005, Joe Hallett reported that John Kasich was considering challenging Ken Blackwell because Ken Blackwell’s fiscal proposals were “irresponsible.” At the time, the only policy of Ken Blackwell’s that John Kasich could have possibly be referring to was Blackwell’s TEL amendment which would have limited the growth of state and local spending by constitutional fiat.
Now John Kasich is talking about a tax plan that will, under any timetable, call for the elimination of 40% of the State’s revenues and cannot even bring himself to say that he’s any different from Ken Blackwell on policy. And Joe Hallet doesn’t even bring it up.
I’m starting to understand why Matt Naugle was curiously absent from the Kasich-Taylor presser and has been silent lately. If I were the Kasich-Taylor folks, I’d be worried about Naugle.
A young lawyer, recently admitted to the Georgia bar, learns that he’s been appointed by the court to represent a man in jail on a misdemeanor charge. The lawyer is handed a folder containing the criminal complaint as he heads to the jail. Sitting across from his client in the jail’s attorney visiting room, the lawyer opens the file and read the criminal complaint. His eyes widen as his jaw undiplomatically drops to the floor.
“Mr. [Smith], this criminal complaint says you’ve been charged with bestiality in that your neighbor and her young daughter saw you in plain sight in your backyard having sex with your dog… What do you have to say in response to these charges?”
“It’s my dog.”
And that, my friends, is my retort to Matt Naugle’s absurd notion that the Constitution gives an absolute right for people to treat animals as property as they wish.
The law should reflect that animals are property, and thus the only crimes against animals should be those which currently exist to protect property… Anything less involves taking away rights from man. And more importantly, the same people who blur the difference between harming humans and animals also seem to be perfectly OK with murdering unborn babies.
In other words, because Naugle presumes that most animal rights activists are Pro-Choice, he’s allowed to depart from his religion’s belief that all life is sacred and if you wish to torture, screw, or kill your dog, if such an act would not already constitute as a crime against property (crimes involving damage to inanimate objects), then it should be hunky dory.
Naugle reveals the cliché of slippery slope argument. Used against his own argument, he presents not a slippery slope but a readily available rational to permit bestiality.
Naugle’s undeveloped thought process is in criticism of a bill that would increase the penalties for cockfighting. In other words, the “absolute property rights” argument has already been rejected by the General Assembly and no court in the land has found that such a criminal statute violates the property rights of individuals under the Constitution.
It’s only been a law since 1980 – you know, when Reagan was President and Jim Rhodes was Governor. Yeah, Naugle is now officially to the right of 1980s Ohio Republicanism.
One of my favorite bloggers points out that another of my favorite bloggers is suing my least favorite blogger. The only better kicker is that another least favorite blogger (and lawyer) is representing said favorite blogger. In short, Scott Pullins is helping Tim Russo sue Matt Naugle.
It has to be true. I couldn’t even make that up!
Why? Because at some point you have to surrender to what is right. I think Scott has done that. Or he just loves lawsuits – which as Joe here will tell you – just might be the case. I have trouble defending Scott Pullins. His wife threatened my wife with a lawsuit and taking our home and made her cry. I’m not over it nor did I ever remember getting an official apology.
I have no trouble defending Tim Russo. Tim is a friend. I’ll have more on this when I get time to write it (and it’s long overdue). Modern Esquire gets it right here, though, and I’m glad to see him getting Tim’s back on this:
And the only bigger cop out is the utter silence that people on our side our justifying because Tim is an ass. Well, the First Amendment thrives in the presences of asses like Tim. Popular speech which keeps us comfortable and reassured needs no protection because it’s under no attack. It’s the speech of the ass that makes the First Amendment necessary because they challenge our assumptions, force us from our comfort zones, and generates vehment dissent.
I think I’ve not posted because I figured a great deal of it went without saying. It’s known Tim and I are buddies. He knows where we stand. I know he’d rather see it in a blog post though and I plan to do more on that front really soon.
I will wish Pullins luck, however, because I think he’s fighting something worth fighting this time. Maybe he’ll take Matt Naugle’s house.
More signs that young Matthew is about to see the light. First it was mouthing the “Yes We Can” chant at an Obama rally, now he’s running MoveOn.org ads? Thanks for pushing the progressive message Matthew! Really appreciate it, buddy! I got my sticker coming, how about you? LOL.
I also want to congratulate Matt on his strong 18 ranking on BNN. Seems since he has allowed a known lunatic pseudo-progressive “activist” to comment on his site he’s been tanking. PB was #1 last week and top ten this week – and we don’t really even try.
