Chicago Democrats Say Voting for a Criminal is Better Than Voting for Republicans

If you want an example of why Democrats are truly a party of criminals, you have but to look to Chicago for your examples and not just because Chicago has one of the highest rates of Democrat pols being convicted of crimes. This particular election, Chicago Democrats are actually urging voters to vote for a state rep. that was just this month arrested and charged with bribe taking instead of voting for his opponent that has a clean record — but was a Republican.

That’s right, Chicago Democrats want you to vote for someone we already suspect is a corrupt, bribe-taking, politician over one who is not.

A cadre of Democrats led by U.S. Rep. Danny Davis held a rally for Smith’s election saying that it was better to vote for their arrested friend than to vote for his opponent.

“We know that our colleague is charged with criminal activity,” Davis said. “But we also know that a charge is not a conviction.”

Why would they do this? Why would they come to the aide of a guy arrested for bribe-taking?

The situation for State Rep Derrick’s Smith’s seat is pretty interesting, you’ll have to admit. Smith was appointed to the 10th District seat he now holds when its former occupant was appointed to an open state senate seat. Smith then went forth to get his requisite amount of graft and bribes but did so clumsily and got caught.

In the meantime Smith is running for election in his own right to the 10th’s seat. But he faces a primary opponent. A fellow named Tom Swift filed to run against Smith and is now vying to unseat the troubled Smith.

But Swift is not just an average Chicago Democrat. As it happens, was once the director of the Cook County Republican Party. He filed as a Democrat to run against Smith. Amusingly, Swift’s campaign ads feature a photo of a black construction worker instead of photos of himself!

Regardless, this all shows that Democrats care only about the power of their party. They don’t care what’s good for voters, they don’t care if their candidates are known criminals, they don’t care to offer candidates free of criminal activity. They just want to prevent anyone who is a Republican from winning.

This is the corruption of the criminal Democrat Party.

Definitely not Mensa qualified
If a Republican did it . . .
  • GarandFan

    What do you expect?  Alice Hastings.  Charlie Rangel.  Splash Kennedy.  The list goes on.

    •  Alcee Hastings (impeached Federal Judge) and Ted “swimmer” Kennedy.

  • Hank_M

    With dems, it’s all about the party and the political power.

    The charges, convictions, hypocrisy, whatever are nothing more than minor details.
    And as dems will always say when caught – everyone does it – as a way to explain it away.

    Makes sense. A party with no morals and no values is one without accountability.


  • herddog505

    Of COURSE dems would urge people to vote for a criminal instead of a Republican.  What do you think “vote democrat” means?  For that matter, democrats are the party of letting felons vote.  The entire “party” is rotten and corrupt from top to bottom, nothing more than a criminal racket that uses Ponzi schemes (Social Security) and confidence games (“green energy”) to line its own pockets and those of its pols and donors.

    • jim_m

      Beat me to it.  In Chicago voting dem is voting for a criminal.  There really isn’t a point in making a distinction.

      The only qualifier I would put in is that, in Illinois, voting for a dem is nearly always voting for a criminal, whereas voting for a republican is only sometimes voting for a criminal.  I guess the dems can make the claim that you always know what you are getting when you vote for them.

  • That’s right, Chicago Democrats want you to vote for someone we already suspect is a corrupt, bribe-taking, politician over one who is not.

    Doesn’t that happen during every election in Chicago?

    •  I was just going to say:

      That’s right, Chicago Democrats want you to vote for someone we already
      suspect is a corrupt, bribe-taking, politician over one who is not.

      In other words, Chicago Democrats want us to vote for a Chicago Democrat.

  • Hugh_G

    I’d be happy to post a very long list of Republican criminals for you holier-than-though self-righteous hypocrites..


    • warnertoddhuston

      Not that you could come up with such a list that mirrors the post, here, but nice try, though.

    •  Harding’s Navy secretary and…?

      • Commander_Chico

        Duke Cunningham, George Ryan, and Bob Ney come to mind right away.

        Not to mention the all time champ of abuse of office, Nixon.

        • The_Weege_99

          One problem there. Can you claim that the Republican party supported these people after they were charged or indicted for wrongdoing?

          That’s the difference.

          You just don’t seem to grasp that most salient of facts.

          • Commander_Chico

            Nixon was pardoned by another Republican.

          • jim_m

             Idiot.  There happens to be a difference between pardoning someone for their offenses and asking the voters to vote for that person again.  When did the GOP nominate Nixon for another office?

          • You just insulted idiots everywhere…

        • jb

           Oh, and don’t forget Saint Reagan. The man who violated the US Constitution to illegally sell missiles to our sworn Iranian enemies, so as to get funding for another illegal unauthorized war in South America.

          It was called Iran-Contra, for those who are curious…

    • Bet you can’t come up with a list similer to a list of these righteous Democrats

      Then of course there is your average, Obama loving citizen to consider also…

      • Hugh_G

        Well you know, we’re all criminals or Muslims.


        • Well are you finally admitting what everyone already knew?

          • Hugh_G

            No, I’m pointing out that you really are an idiot.

          • No, what you’re pointing out is that you’re both a liar and someone who’s running away from reality has fast as he can…

            That’s the sniveling coward part of the typical liberal and Democrat…

          • Hugh_G

            Why are you and so many others like you so full of hate?

            Is it because you’re just ignorant or stupid? Or is there some other reason like you weren’t weaned and toilet trained properly?

          • Disagreement isn’t hate.

            Hate is usually disagreeable, though. 

            People tend to respond to disagreeable people in disagreeable ways…

          • Hugh_G

            I agree. Not all conservatives or all liberals hate. Some form both sides.

            The idiot who wanted to engage is probably one of the haters, if not then he’s just stupid. Bringing up criminals as only being democrats is either stupid or hateful. You agree or not?

          • hugh as every libtard does they confuse hate with what is actually happening, ‘feelings of absolute disgust and revulsion‘ that sub humanoids like you are allowed human status…

            So it isn’t hate you limp wristed, whining little tard, its just pure revulsion…

          • Hugh_G

            Subhumans eh? That’s what Hiler and the Nazis called the Jews and the Slavs to justify their extermination..

            That says about all I want to know about you.

          • Is that why your boyfriend is in bed with al jazeera?

  • ackwired

    We have the same thing here in Arizona.  Except the Republicans are in power.  So, they are the ones doing it…and they don’t limit themselves to state representatives.  They recommend crooked congressmen.  Check out Rick Renzi.

    • iwogisdead

      Except that Renzi didn’t run for anything after charges were brought against him. I’m not sure what you mean in saying that Republicans “recommend” Renzi.

      • ackwired

        You are right.  I should have looked it up instead of relying on my memory.  The party remained neutral during the primary season (he did not withdraw until August).  The local US Attorney said that he was fired for pursuing the case.  That was when the Bush administration replaced the US Attorneys who were investigating Republicans.  But obviously that would have been impossible to prove.

        Thanks for asking me about it.

        • The_Weege_99

          Ah, the DNC-created myth of the US attorney dismissals being over investigations of GOPers. Amazing how liberals cling to their hollow fantasies.

          Unlike Holder’s DoJ dismissal of charges against criminals, every single one of these cases were carried forward to indictment and prosecution.

          Just because Charlton was a lying POS political hack doesn’t mean you have to be one, too.

          • ackwired

            I have never seen any evidence that this scandal was manufactured by the DNC.  The allegations that the US attorneys were dismissed because they were investigating R’s or refusing to investigate D’s came from the US attorneys who were dismissed.  The Bush administration’s responses were so self contradictory that a special prosecutor was appointed to look for perjury. 

            But I’m sure that anyone who questions a R is just a lying POS in your eyes. 

          • jim_m

            Yep.. Bush fires 6 AG’s and it a SCANDAL!!!!!!

            Clinton fires 93 and it’s “Nothing to see here… Move along”

            Ackwired, your hypocrisy is showing.

          • ackwired

            Since I didn’t mention Clinton, it seems that you are the hypocrit.

          • jim_m

            No I am merely pointing out that the left never flinched atthe unprecedented firing of ALL US Attorney Generals, yet the firing of 6 AG’s was a reason to call for impeachment.

            I did not say anything regarding the reasonableness of firing the 6 (yes there was good reason to think that at least some were fired for political reasons.  I should not have to remind you that all were originally appointed by Bush). 

            Clinton’s move was nakedly political (can I use naked and Clinton safely in the same sentence?) and the left ignored it.

            That’s what makes you a hypocrite and your attempt to call me one BS.  Not that I am never a hypocrite (That would be a feat indeed for anyone), but that I am not one in this instance.

          • ackwired

            I think your problem here is that you assume that I somehow represent the left.  I know Rush uses that maneuver to attack anyone who disagrees with him.  But you will make more sense if you can outgrow it.

          • lasveraneras

            Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

          • Rich Bright

            Check- Clintons record- before you regurgitate party lines- You will Find the first black president got rid of a lot more US Attorneys then Bush.

  • I have come to think I would vote for the devil himself over a demacrap

    •  Can’t be done. The devil would be running as a Democrat.

      •  Even he has standards, and the Demonrats are beneath him…

    • Hugh_G

      So what you’re saying is all Rethuglicans are devils?

      The truth has set you free!!!!!!!!

    • jb

       Then why question those who consider a criminal over a Repoop-licken?

  • Ah yes, the old Democratic rallying cry: “Vote for the Crook!  It’s important!”

  • Pingback: Moral Midgets | The Pink Flamingo()