Mrs.PatsFanInVa

So let's see - the allegations against Jeff Perry (standing by during an improper strip search) are unproven, the allegations against Christine O'Donnell (using campaign funds illegally) are admitted to by the candidate herself, the allegations against Joe Miller (using official government equipment for private usage) were proven and he was reprimanded for it and you think I've got an inability to judge the importance of different accusations?

In all the times you've said that a candidate's past history does not matter so long as he/she is going to lower taxes and/or shrink government have you ever once said, "depending on the charges?"

Please, tell us why you think the allegations against Jeff Perry (which he's denied and which he has not been formally charged with) are so much truer than the charges against Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell are - especially in light of the fact that Joe and Christine have admitted their guilt and Jeff Perry has not?

If Clarence Thomas was a victim of a " lying piece of crap douchebag " why not Jeff Perry? It's the same he said/she said thing, isn't it?

Disclaimer: I am not sticking up for Jeff Perry here. I believe he's just as guilty as I believe Clarence Thomas was - I'm just curious as to how 13 can defend one and not the other.