Burr: I'll support Duckworth

"You need to work on your spin - you seem to be backtracking now..."

If you look closely, these diaries and comments have names of the people who write them. Someone else wrote those words that you keep trying to attribute to me. This is part of my response to those words:

If you'll recall some of her campaign issues/promises, balancing the budget and/or spending restraint was one of her pillars, so we shouldn't be surprised when she actually tries to do those things.

"So it is ok in your opinion for Hagan to be influenced by the "liberal special interest," which would be contrary to her campaign promises?"

I sort of answered that above, but I'll go a little deeper. Before last year's primary, I was a Jim Neal supporter. I spent a lot of time trying to find links between Kay's actions in the Senate and her campaign contributors, to see if she was a "pay to play"-type politician. Her reputation as a "business-friendly" politician led me to believe there would be some juicy stuff there. Well, there wasn't. Which is a big reason why I stood solidly behind her following the primary. So the answer is, I don't expect her to be influenced by anything other than her conscience. I also expect to see some deviation from her campaign promises, simply because the realities of the U.S. Senate differ somewhat from her General Assembly experience, and what you think you can and want to do often changes when you're actually sitting in the chair.

"Do you also feel as if she should be listening to Dodd over Lieberman?"

Yeah, I do. Lieberman is a hawk who threw his support behind an ill-tempered neocon Republican for President, a move that I believe would have been disastrous for this country. If his judgment was questionable before that, that question has been answered. If Kay can learn anything of merit from Lieberman, it's what not to do as a Senator.

"I love how you fail to answer my questions during our little back and forths..."

I may take a long time getting there, which might result in little children
getting restless and looking out the window, but my answers are not that hard to detect if you're paying attention.

Not a fair question, since I doubt the folks responding to you (or rather not responding) take you seriously.

So it is ok in your opinion for Hagan to be influenced by the "liberal special interest," which would be contrary to her campaign promises?

You not only essentially called women a "special interest group" earlier but a liberal one at that before saying anyone that follows you down this little diversion off topic from Burr is a blind sheep.

I'm just saying. You sew what you bleat. And you prove it with every post by sticking by Burr in this fashion.

Burr is a gelatinous blob you have to divert attention from to 'defend.'

Go ahead. Keep going. Attack women. Attack lawyers (half of whom happen to be women, while the other half happen to be married to them). Call working Americans special interests and CEO's of Multinational Corporation's misunderstood patriots under assault by WalMart greeters.

No spin here. Just translating your spin to reality.

Good luck with that. Your strategy has worked so well the last two cycles, I'd hate to interrupt your losing streak.

You need to work on your spin - you seem to be backtracking now...

So it is ok in your opinion for Hagan to be influenced by the "liberal special interest," which would be contrary to her campaign promises?

Do you also feel as if she should be listening to Dodd over Lieberman?

I love how you fail to answer my questions during our little back and forths...

"Do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary?"

If you'll notice, not everybody agreed with the position the individual blogger put forward. BlueNC does not present a "unified front" on issues; someone will post their take on a given subject, which quite often generates a debate on said subject. It might be messy, but that's how we roll.

My point with linking to that post was to demonstrate that we watch the behavior of elected Democrats as much (if not more) than Republicans, and if somebody sees something they don't like, they post a diary about it. And if someone else disagrees with that diary, they'll post a comment, usually explaining why they disagree. Right now, there are two separate diaries on the front page that are critical of specific things Governor Perdue has done recently. Hypocrisy would be to ignore those things.

I have never said Hagan is too liberal - I said that she is beholden to the money that she got to the campaign trail, which was mostly from "liberal special interest groups."- there is a vast difference as BLUENC wants her to break campaign promises.

See you even try to add spin to what I am saying - mine is basic - Hagan promised and now she is going against it. To me that shows a lack of character and a dishonest services to us North Carolinians.

I know the topic was on Burr - the liberals took my bait and followed along like blind sheep to talk about Hagan.

I do, I do!

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary?

I saw this ill fated morning show going this way hours ago.

You and your wingnuts say Kay's too liberal. BlueNC wingnuts say Kay's too conservative.

She sounds about right to me!

PS - This thread is about Burr and his gelatinous backbone.

"Kay was paid a lot from Democratic/liberal sources for her to now begin maneuvering to center-center thinking to make points with Republicans for cross-over "bipartisanship"?"

So you cite this post as a reference as to BLUENC tarring and feathering Kay Hagan - well thank you for helping prove the point that Kay will always vote for the "liberal" agenda considering they gave her such money.

Your premise of this post is that Hagan must be more responsive to these groups since they contributed this amount of money, which helped get her elected.

She has not voted contrary to positions of the "liberal" groups, which BLUENC cited in their very harsh comments of her meeting with the moderate Democrats.

Thus her record shows that she has not "taken the money and run" and in fact, Hagan is beholden to those groups that gave her money, according to her record. I applaud her for standing for tobacco's interest arm and arm with Burr, by the way.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412324_kay_hagan

You might call what you guys wrote a tough criticism, but I call it whining that your money is not keeping her liberal enough. You do remember that over 47% of North Carolinians did not vote for her and their voices must be heard - minority rights - isn't that a underlying theme of the liberal cause.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary?

You want Hagan to respond favorable to the money, which would be in direct contrast of her campaign promises of not being beholden to the "special interest."

PS your post also states - "Look around at the sources of her funds and tell me that she should be consorting with Bayh and Lieberman."

Would you rather her listen to Dodd?

To be fair - be it for some reasons I disagree with - but Dodd is very correct in his opposition to the cutting of the F-22 funding in Obama's budget.

"It is funny...it only took nine minutes to look through the results and find no such commentary..."

Considering that search produces 425 results.

Look, just take my word for it, okay? We chased Kay with pitchforks and torches, tarred her, feathered her, rode her out of town on a rail, and I think somebody even salted her garden. I'm not sure about that last thing. It might have just been talk.

But she kept talking to us, and eventually won most of us over. But that didn't keep us from nipping at her heels a week ago.

Well James made the comment that "If you spent any time at all reading what Steve Harrison and I write about politics at BlueNC, you'd withdraw this comment and apologize. Speaking for myself, I spend plenty of time pointing out political grandstanding by Democrats, too, including Senator Hagan."

So I went to BlueNC and in the search bar provided typed in Kay Hagan and it is funny never saw acknowledging for the "political grandstanding by Democrats, too, including Senator Hagan."

It is funny...it only took nine minutes to look through the results and find no such commentary...

But continue to pander please...

Efficiency is a great thing...perhaps our federal government should consider the notion, because our government is not efficient.

"James - I just looked on BLUENC and saw nothing but "progressive" liberal talking points - I saw nothing that viewed Hagan in a negative light - which is disappointing."

Wow. That took a grand total of nine minutes to make that determination. I am in awe of your lightning-fast research and processing skills. Is your middle name, "Cray", by any chance?

So bnartist you do agree that Lilly Leadbetter did nothing for gender equality?

You are right and I did not explain thorough enough that is from the last discriminatory paycheck, but it does deal with statue of limitations...

Check out Wikipedia for those that want a quick summary, but I do forewarn that Wiki is written by the average person.

Hagan - did in fact that at a campaign event with Max Cleland - I was there and if I can find it in a format (audio or video) I will post - give me a few - I do have other work to do....

I think we have gender equality in America and if there is a deviation in treatment then we have a court system in place...

But there you go pandering to the ignorant masses as the legislation did nothing for gender equality...

The Lilly Ledbetter act kept the statute of limitations at 180 days. It merely changed the start date from the day the pay was agreed to the date of the most recent paycheck.

Kay Hagan did not say those exact words. She did promise to look out for the best interests of hardworking Americans, people like Lilly Ledbetter.

So CitizenO doesn't want gender pay equity.

Is anyone surprised?

Back to the Taliban talking points...

James - I just looked on BLUENC and saw nothing but "progressive" liberal talking points - I saw nothing that viewed Hagan in a negative light - which is disappointing.

Fact 1 : Hagan lied on the campaign trail by stating "I will not be held to the special interest of America when I get to DC."

Hagan cosponsored and voted YES for Lilly Leadbetter, which effectively rewrote a statue of limitation, yet was framed as a issue that addressed gender discrimination. All it is was give the trial lawyers the opportunity to file suit against an employer if their client believes discrimination occurred. The law used to have a statue of limitation of 180 days post termination, but now their is not a status of limitation.

Hagan received over $23,000 from the American Association of Trial Lawyers and over $391,000 from Lawyers and Law Firms. I call this pay back for special interest.

I do not read BLUENC, but I will check it out, I enjoy learning new stuff.

Burr should disclose those findings when Hagan discloses' her reasons for firing two of my employees that worked in her office.

I never said liberal nutjob in describing Cleland - I stated that he was sloppy in his statement on the campaign trail. I was just pointing out another example that was not cited by Protzman and Harrison - but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth cornbread.

I think lpetrou hits the nail on the head with their analysis of this situation.

Being a "decorated veteran..." and "extremely sloppy..." are not mutually exclusive things. One can be both. Senator Burr had questions about the financial forms she filled out, he asked, she answered, he was satisfied, and he is going to vote for her. All of this is very reasonable and very appropriate. For the liberal democrats to make a big thing out of it just goes to show the level of their knowledge and maturity.

If you spent any time at all reading what Steve Harrison and I write about politics at BlueNC, you'd withdraw this comment and apologize. Speaking for myself, I spend plenty of time pointing out political grandstanding by Democrats, too, including Senator Hagan.

More to the point, you don't know what Burr discovered about Duckworth, or whether it rises to the level of extreme sloppiness. And yet you happily thank him for "due diligence" that you know nothing about. Talk about blind loyalty.

The Senator should disclose his findings immediately and let his employers (us) know exactly what he's been spending taxpayer dollars on.

Maybe you trust Burr to do the right thing, but I don't. He appears far too willing to put party over country as far as I'm concerned.

CO: If veteran and former GA Senator Max Cleland is such a liberal nutjob, why did the coservative Baptists at Gardner-Webb University in NC just have him speak at their campus?

I guess that's one item McClatchy-Raleigh didn't cross post from McClatchy-Charlotte.

Defame Cleland elsewhere.

Wow the liberals on this message board are oh so quick to attack Burr, but she is supported by VoteVets, which promotes Max Cleland too and remember how sloppy his word choice was during the campaign of Senator Hagan.

Thanks Burr for having due diligence and researching Duckworth.

Look at the sloppiness of Senator Hagan's office and the suspicious firing of Fred Aiken, a decorated military man himself.

Protzman and Scharrison - Are you guys capable of seeing that yall are so quick to attack that some times you fail to see the double standards yall blatantly ignore to make your points...?

War is extremely sloppy. Loosing your legs is extremely messy. Mr Burr suffers from a delusion that driving his "Thing" around DC is an equivalent to piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in a combat zone. He confuses Walter Reed with Walter Mitty. Nobody should get a free pass but Tammy Duckworth's service deserves a little more service from Mr Burr than the musings of a preening dilettante.

Sen. Burr needs to issue a statement of clarification regarding the
nominee's 'sloppiness' indeed. Now, the people need to know what he meant.
As we well know now, most anyone 'serving' in Illinois is suspect of all sorts of things.

Instead of just saying, "My questions have been answered, and I'm ready to support her", you had to go that extra step and call her "extremely sloppy", and then try to dirty her with the Blagojevich shot.

I want you to remember this little stunt in the months ahead, when we take a closer look at the millions that have rolled into your campaign coffers. You better put up the top on that VW Thing, because the $#!^ is going to be raining down very soon.

He declined to discuss the details, other than saying "the math didn’t add up." She subsequently provided additional information.

"At the end of the day," Burr said, "I don't think there is a financial question about Tammy Duckworth. I think she is extremely sloppy, but that is not a disqualification."

If a Senator is going to call a decorated veteran "extremely sloppy," he should have the decency to explain in detail what he thinks justifies such commentary. In the meantime, we'll just have to conclude that Burr is extremely sloppy and accept the fact such ineptitude does not disqualify him from being a Republican obstructionist caught on the wrong side of the wrong issue.

What a jerk.

Given how many of President Obama's appointees have had to repay taxes due to errors, it is only reasonable to hold up this nomination until questions were cleared up. Once they were, Senator Burr has said he will vote for her.