Bio: Pete Stark

Job Description:        U.S. Representative (CA-13)

Party Affiliation:         Left of Communism

You don’t have to research any further then your local newspaper to realize that Pete Stark is an arrogant, low-life asshole. Others would surely agree that this is complimentary. He once again spews filth out his vulgar mouth without an ounce of fear of reprisals. Makes you wonder about the political correct debate and how it applies to potty-mouth liberals. His latest spewing of insults was against a constituent. Normally his rants are racial and vulgar and pointed toward a colleague who might disagree with him. This time he was arrogant enough to go after the people who pay his salary.

Meet Daniel Dow, 33, who serves in the California National Guard, who wrote to the Bay Area Representative protesting his vote last week against a House resolution condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. His letter (below) was direct and critical of the Representative but done in a professional manner. And lets face it, these men and woman receive hundreds of letters and e-mails of this sort every day. We’re the people they represent, so they expect and deserve to hear our rants and raves. It comes with the job description. In most cases, the response is a form letter that basically states “Thank you for your concern, now go away … but thanks”.  Pete Stark is anything but a normal case. Below is the letter Daniel Dow wrote and Pete Starks response (Click on picture of Pete below). I was going to put the transcript here but you need to actually hear it. His response was left on Daniels message machine.

The Letter:

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Pete Stark
House of Representatives
239 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stark,

I am appalled that you voted against today's House Resolution 627, Roll Number 150. This measure would have shown publicly that you condemn the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq while simultaneously commend the service of the fine men and women who are serving in Iraq that bring honor to the uniform that they wear and to the Nation that they serve.

There are many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastguardsmen from your 13th Congressional District who are serving with pride and distinction . These men and women bring great credit upon their hometowns and the State of California.

Your "NO" vote is an indication that you do not support the troops who selflessly serve our nation and in many cases have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you might have the freedom that you enjoy as a citizen of this great Nation. Further, your "NO" vote on this resolution is a disgrace to the people of this district who have elected you.

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in Iraq. Your "NO" vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

Very Sincerely,

Daniel L. Dow

Click on Pete Stark's picture to hear it. Be patient for it to open as it needs to load. If patience isn't one of your virtues then go ahead and "click here" to read it. If you wish can right-click on picture then click on "save target as.." to save it to your computer.

Click on Picture

This type of arrogance is common for Stark. No one calls him on it so I guess we just have to accept him as a weak man with his head up his ass. Works for me. Some other examples:

According to an official committee transcript, Stark physically taunted fellow Ways and Means Committee member Scott McInnis, R-Colo., while Thomas attempted to hold a voice vote on the bill at hand. In response to McInnis' demand that Thomas be quiet while the bill was being read, Stark blurted out: "Oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you.''

 Further goading McInnis, a married Republican gentleman, Stark lashed out: "You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake." According to Fox News Channel, witnesses say Stark then hurled a 10-letter homophobic insult at Thomas better suited for an anti-gay rap record than the Congressional Record. What we do know is the sentence ended with word "cocksucker". Stark's press office refused to answer questions on the record about these remarks.

Homosexual-rights groups, no where to be found. "I think he meant nothing by it," Human Rights Campaign official Winnie Stachelberg told Fox News. In his own defense, Stark claims "fruitcake means inept, crazy, a nut cake to me." Yeah right Winnie. One can only imagine what she thinks about the cocksucker remark.

The silence over Stark is no surprise. Liberals have long looked the other way at Stark's bigoted boorishness over the course of his three decades in public office. In 1995, when he called Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., a "whore" for the insurance industry and suggested that her knowledge of health care came solely from "pillow talk" with her physician husband, not a single Democrat objected. Not one of the proud feminists on Capitol Hill signed a letter, supported by 35 Republican House members, demanding that Stark apologize.

Nor did the Congressional Black Caucus emit a peep when Stark lambasted former Bush I Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan, an accomplished doctor and medical researcher, as "a disgrace to his race and his profession" because he opposed Stark's socialist health care schemes. "I guess I should feel ashamed because Congressman Stark thinks I am not a 'good Negro,"' Sullivan observed after the 1990 incident. "As a Cabinet member who has spent almost four decades of my life dedicated to healing, ... [I] am unable to express my own views without being subject to race-based criticism by those who are not ready to accept independent thinking by a black man."

Then there was the time Stark attacked former conservative California state welfare director Eloise Anderson in 1999 as a baby-killer, complaining at a public forum that "she would kill children if she had her way" simply because she opposed cradle-to-grave government welfare entitlements. Not a single finger-wagging editorial from the media elite about the need for decorum and decent behavior in public debate appeared in either the California or national op-ed pages.

The lesson couldn't be more stark: Only the self-anointed preachers of tolerance and civility on the Left can have their fruitcake and eat it, too.

Excerpts taken from Michelle Malkin's column who is syndicated by Creators Syndicate and appears in about 100 newspapers nationwide.

RUNNER UP FOR THE HEADS UP AWARD: LIBERAL LION