There are now two Boyda apologists attacking me out there in cyberspace. Apparently, I'm hitting a little too close to home when it comes to Rep. Boyda. You see liberals believe in freedom of speech until they don't like the speech you're giving. At which point, they attack you. They know Nancy is hard to defend, so they attack.
Here are five things to consider in this ongoing debate:
1. Nancy Boyda changes positions on issues whenever it suits her needs. This is well-documented. At some point, you have to say, when is she telling me the truth, OR what kind of character does she have, OR does she ever take a principled position?
2. Nancy Boyda was rejected from the Blue Dogs because she was LIBERAL, it had nothing to do with some membership limit (that defies common sense).
3. Somehow she gave the National Journal the impression that she didn't apply, nor did she want to be a part of the Blue Dogs. The way the quote was worded, it seems to go beyond a simple reporting mistake to suggest Boyda left them with that impression. Moreover, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that if the Blue Dogs had come to Nancy in January and offered her a slot for this year that she wouldn't have taken it and sent out multiple press releases. That leads to the main point of the post that started all this, Nancy spins everything. When all you ever do is spin, you are no longer telling the truth.
4. I don't care what the screwy National Journal rankings say (and the rankings have nothing to do with the quality of the reporters, the rankings are established by the editors, I said they were reputable, I didn't say the rankings were right), when you vote with San Fran Nan Pelosi 93% of the time, you are not in the middle, you are on the left. When you have a 100% NARAL rating, you are not in the center. When you vote with trial lawyers and unions over small business owners and national security, you are not in the center you are on the left.
5. Let's not forget other mention in the article about Boyda turning down fundraising help from Democrat leadership. Boyda is at best shading the truth about this. She didn't technically become a part of the program, but she shared the same donors, at the same times as those in the program, and she used Speaker Pelosi's name to raise money. If you get the money, you are part of the program.
My two detractors cannot argue with me on substance, so the attacks will continue. That's fine. I welcome the debate.
Dedicated to the proposition that Nancy Boyda is a one termer.