Nick Lampson to challenge DeLay
by Owen Courrèges · 05/05/2005 12:04 amAfter getting his rump handed to him by Ted Poe, Nick Lampson is looking to carpetbag his way over to Tom DeLay’s district with hopes of beating him come November:
Former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson wants to return to Washington, D.C., and formally announced today that he’ll take on one of that city’s most powerful politicians to get there.The 60-year-old Beaumont Democrat said he plans to move to Stafford, which he called the "neighborhood of his roots," and run for the 22nd Congressional District against U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
I know the left realizes that DeLay is vulnerable, but I frankly don’t see how this is going to work. Lampson is far left on social issues, which isn’t a nice fit for Sugar Land.
Moreover, the fact that DeLay’s numbers are poor doesn’t mean that Sugar Land’s prepared to elect a liberal Democrat. If there’s anything we learned in the last presidential election, it’s that an incumbent embroiled in controversy with weak polling numbers can still emerge victorious if his opponent is too far outside the mainstream. I think Lampson qualifies, and he’s going to have trouble hiding it. The MoveOn.org moonbats are already rallying behind him.
Trust me, we can expect to see this again:
This and more on LiberalLampson.com. We’re in for a dogfight here, boys.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
4 Responses to “Nick Lampson to challenge DeLay”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Ted Poe won an election in a gerimandered district with a huge majority of eligible voters in his own back yard. Nick Lampson maintained his better than 60% advantage in his own back yard of Jefferson County. That there could be some objection to Nick Lampson challenging the ethically-challenged Tom DeLay is so hypocritical. Lampson is merely re-claiming what was once his own district, mainly Galveston County. It’s one thing to label an elected official as liberal or conservative on social issues, it’s quite another to demonstrate such claims with proof, like voting record for example. Please explain how Nick Lampson is ‘liberal on social issues’. Relatively speaking, Jesus Christ himself is liberal compared to Tom DeLay, if only because he did not condemn homosexuality, abortion, adultery, and helping the needy - all of which those on DeLay’s side of the aisle seldom miss the chance to do. Come to think of it, Christ hardly condemned anything, save for hypocrisy, commercializing the church, and forsaking the sick, poor and children. Funny how the Right regularly finds a way to pull off the immoral superfecta, while cloaking itself in sheep’s moral clothing.
To spread false gossip for lack of substance by purporting what one thinks Nick Lampson does or does not support, is unfortunate. It’s also petty and cheap and otherwise pathetic.
Again, just because Nick Lampson never condemned homosexuality, damning those guilty to hell, this does not make him a supporter of gay marriage. But this is exactly what that pathetic billboard reads. By this logic, one could claim Tom DeLay supports the mass killing of women and children. How? By supporting the war on Iraq, which has indeed killed thousands of woman children.
I guess we’ll have to settle for the billboard that reads, "Tom DeLay went on a golfing trip paid by lobbyists, and all we got was this lousy billboard." ……………………………………………………………………..Courrèges responds: The truth hurts, doesn’t it? You really can’t object to calling a pro-abortion, pro-gay candidate "liberal on social issues."
There is nothing wrong with being liberal on social issues in fact another word for liberal is compassion.
That’s a laugh.
How compassionate is it to the unborn child that is aborted simply because the mother cannot be bothered with a pregnancy (abstinence prevents this 100%)?
How compassionate is it to tax me, a very hardworking guy (single income) with wife and 3 young children, into oblivion while turning around and giving that tax money, in the form of welfare, to some slob that will not get off their lazy bum and take a job at the local McDonalds for minimum wage.
If that is compassion, I want no part of it.
Preston wrote: “Come to think of it, Christ hardly condemned anything…” and reiterates the tired old liberal stanza about how Jesus never condemned homosexuality, etc. I am so sick of people who do not know the Bible claiming to know what Jesus said.
Jesus endorsed the ENTIRE Old Testament on repeated occasions, such as Matthew 5:17-19, where He said none of it would pass away and that He did not come to abolish it. He then proceeds to take the laws to even further extremes, condemning not just murder but hate, not just adultery but lust, and so on.
Christ condemned a LOT of things through His words, through His endorsement of the Old Testament, and through His actions.
Argue your point from true logic and true quotes, Preston, or don’t argue it at all. This “Jesus never condemned anyone or anything” is blatantly ridiculous.