Push Pulle-ing
April 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm by BrianDangling enema bag Matt Pulle, of the effervescently douchetastic Nashville Scene, did what few have achieved in these partisan times of ours. He persuaded a local Democrat attorney to write a letter in defense of a conservative candidate for a federal judgeship (and his former legal opponent) to Pat “Leaky” Leahy after Pulle’s incessant vinegary offerings:
Federal judicial nominee Gus Puryear has the support from what some might consider an unlikely spot in the city’s legal community — the opposing attorney in one of the most high-profile cases against Puryear’s employer, private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America.
Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith formally offered his support of Puryear’s nomination to a federal judgeship in the Middle Tennessee District in a Feb. 25 letter to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy.
Because Matt’s a uniter not a divider.
You see, Puryear was an able attorney for a corporation and thus evil. Unlike the zealous scumbags who defend “dead to rights” murderers that The Scene usually admires.
Puryear also has ties to known Republicans so he is naturally tainted by their stink. Unlike one of our 6MB favorites – one Aleta Trauger. Though I don’t count cold fish as a meat. She was a Clinton/Gore delegate and then Democrat Mayor’s Chief of Staff and whose husband chaired that same Mayor’s campaign (and gubernatorial campaign as well) when she got put on the federal bench after being a mediocre bankruptcy judge. A bankruptcy judgeship that was created just for her.
Of course, I remember this because of all the Scene articles decrying her politically motivated appointment at the time.
Because politics playing a role in getting a seat on the bench is wrong. Right?
Yet, in the letter to Leahy, Smith states Puryear would be an “excellent judge.”
“Basically, he is very sharp, keen-minded, inquisitive and has a very good grasp of the law,” Smith wrote. “He is reflective and has a personality that listens but also argues strongly for his position. He is confident but not arrogant.”
But what would prompt this loyal Democrat to stand-up for this Cheney-loving Christofascist Corporate Bastage?
Smith added that though the Scene article didn’t come out until March 6, the questions asked in the interview with Pulle further motivated him to write the letter in February.
“Matt Pulle talked to me on the phone and gave me all this criticism (of Puryear). It’s not that he didn’t quote me,” Smith said. “It was him (Pulle) telling me the guts of the criticism and knowing the story was going to come out.”
[...]
“I said the exact same things in that letter that I said to Matt Pulle,” Smith insisted. “I said good things about him, none of which were quoted.”
The Scene takes partisan liberties in it’s stories??? The hell you say. The goal was to get some “pile on” quotes from the people who know him best.
Since that original article, Pulle has taken stalking to new lows by attempting to paint an otherwise respected attorney as a racist and misogynist and cheering on a Soros backed, ex-con fellow stalker in a Members’ Only jacket. Engaged in a bit of plagiarism too if you consider his original cover story hit piece as a mere re-wording (with a couple of lame local quotes) of the previous month’s Mother Jones article.
If Puryear gets the nod, his first act as Judge should be to send Pulle some flowers to go with all of his fertilizer. A month ago, I couldn’t have told you who the hell Gus Puryear was but if he pisses off the inky asswipes at the local Village Idiot Voice then he’s good enough for me.
The Defense Rests Update: When you lay down with dogs you get fleas. (original link removed because that was just nauseating). Some people may want to “vet” (heh) their protagonists a little better.
Jesus Harold Christ on a broke leg donkey.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
For another take on the Puryear nomination, you know, for the journalistic purpose of being fair and not-so-balanced, check out: (anonymous in all likelihood Soros backed smear site pimpage removed by editor) A Members Only jacket? How 80’s!
April 11th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
You’ve had your not-so-balanced days already. Now it’s my turn, asshole.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Ah … that’s the way to deal with a dissenting voice! Hide it; silence it; flee from it!
If you have nothing to fear you’ll leave this post up. Of course you won’t, will you?
For the other side of this diatribe coin, check out: (spam deleted)
No Soros funding here — I wish there was. If you have a few bucks you’d like to donate, there’s a button at the bottom of the page. No donation is too small … or too large.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The Alliance for Justice receives a significant share of their funding from Soros. And Friedmann is associated with them.
Your ignorant voice is still being heard. Your solicitations for money and cross-spamming your site here is not.
I love anonymity. But what you are doing is setting up a political website strictly for the purposes of engaging in an anonymous partisan smear campaign.
What’s your name and who are you with?
April 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Anonymous? Not really. If you visit and read the site you keep censoring (www.againstpuryear.org), you’ll notice it includes an email link and the name of the campaign coordinator.
Incidentally, there is no financial or organizational connection between the AFJ and the AgainstPuryear.org folks, other than the latter tipped off the former about the Puryear nomination, not the other way around. I don’t see you citing to any facts that indicate otherwise.
E.g., an anti-Puryear editorial from the opposition campaign was published the month before the AFJ issued its letter. Both are posted on the http://www.againstpuryear.org site (you know, the one you keep removing because you don’t trust the intelligence of your blog readers to draw their own conclusions).
But that’s just dates and facts and stuff. Can’t be bothered with those; after all, why start something new?
BTW, the more info about this issue that gets out there, the better. Publicity is good, even if it’s negative publicity. Thanks for spreading the word!
I enjoy anonymity too, “Brian.”
April 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I trust my one reader just fine.
Ah, spoken like someone who has never faced some truly negative publicity.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
lol — OK, but you may want to “vet” your own sources, too. A quick check indicates the webshot you posted is registered to a different email address in a different state. But I’ll forward it along for comment.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
a) I still don’t believe that previous answer gave your name and who you’re with.
b) Registering an e-mail address saying you live in a particular state does not mean anything. The e-mail in the screenshot says they are located in Nashville.
c) I’m not making any accusations here or disparaging comments about anyone. Simply posting a couple of links without naming specifics.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
a) You’re correct, “Brian.”
b) And of course no one else uses a duplicate user name (but associated with a different email address), and everything posted on the ‘Net is true, right?
c) Of course not. Because you don’t have specifics. So if someone opens an account on certain questionable websites using your handle and location, and posts stuff, there’s no problem linking it to you, right? Just sayin’ …
d) If this is the way you prove your point, such as it is, it says more about you — and that’s positive publicity.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
b) Though true, it would be a pretty amazing coincidence given the reach of the web and the matching sex / geographical proximity.
c) Have I linked something to someone? As it would be illegal for me to join the site in question, I will not be going out to get any more specifics on that particular subject.
I’ve had plenty of people try to ascribe things to me over the years when people would use my name on other websites.
Sometimes a link is just a link.
As far as proving my point, I didn’t even know I had one.
However, for people involved in this little imbroglio it might be worth their while to look into it.
Is that something you think the Puryear people would be interested in doing?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
As I said, I’ll pass it along. As for your lack of a point, point taken.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
A confirmation or a denial would be great.
Either way, if that sort of thing is going on in this state somebody ought to look into it.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
K’. In the meantime, if you have any evidence that
1) the anti-Puryear folks get any funding from Soros, or
2) there is any formal or financial connection between them and AFJ,
please let folks know. Otherwise you’re just plain wrong, though it probably wouldn’t be the first time.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You can infer “Soros backed”, which is all I’ve said, as financial but it can just easily be logistical support or using their organization for attention as they have done. From the Scene’s original article:
So you think it should be the other way around? The Friedmann backed Alliance for Justice?
Many times Soros will send money through his proxies. In the case of the Alliance for Justice, the money comes through the Open Society Institute but they receive donations from many other leftwing groups as well.
Point to where I said your group is on someone’s payroll or has a formal agreement in place. Regardless of whether there are Articles of Organization or bylaws in place, you and them are joined at the hip.
They need you to be their useful idiot running around doing their dirty work for them. If you aren’t getting paid by them then that’s your problem.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Wow, that’s more vomit-inducing than Ipecac, on a variety of levels.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Don’t take this the wrong way AP but I’ve got a full afternoon ahead of me.
In the meantime, don’t rob or kill anybody, k?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Actually, point to where I’ve ever said it’s “my group.”
So, I’ll take it you have no such evidence, proof or so on, or you would have cited it. Par for the course, but I was wondering.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Have anything more recent than 16 years ago?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Whatever. I’ll condemn the monkey and the organ grinder in your case.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
There’s now a monkey and organ grinder site with the same user name? Wow! So, to sum up:
1. Dog lover posts stuff from the same area with the same username that was deployed in the anti-Puryear junk—
2. Somebody googles the username, finds the unpleasantness—and then,
3. Somebody tries to get rid of all similar posts from the depraved sites in the days after the posts were uncovered—and then
4. The ex con turns around with the incredibly lame defense that it was all a coincidence! Dang! What an idiot! What’s he thinking?
Seems to me if somebody could prove that the posts all existed for a few years and then suddenly started disappearing in the last week, they’d have a pretty good smoking gun, huh? Not one of those comic book-stealing smoking guns, either.
Nope, must be another even more amazing coincidence—the person with the same username living in the same area chose THIS week to start trying to get rid of some woof woof (yipe?) posts. The second poster on the grassy knoll probably felt that the anti-Puryear efforts would hurt his love life I guess.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Sorry it took awhile Brian. I was told not to waste my time; however, here are 3 comments for you, and one of my own.
1. “You must be f*cking kidding me.”
2. “Confirmation or denial? Deny.”
3. FYI, I’ve been informed I’m an idiot for even discussing it, but I’ve been called worse.
My own comment, re the above comment: If you Google it, both links still come up; they haven’t gone anywhere. I expect the others are still up too, if you’re sick enough to look for ‘em.
If you want more, ask yourself – you might be surprised at what you hear. It’s not like his contact info is a secret, unlike yours (and mine).
April 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Not to worry my little droogie. It will all be over soon.
A bunch of democrats are getting on the Puryear bandwagon including, as I believe you have implied, Thurgood Marshall’s son who – what’s the gist of what you’re saying – that he’s a sell-out Uncle Tom negro for doing it. Something like that?