Republicans Are Starting to Fight Back

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I hope so, anyways:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/...1501&status=article&id=245631684460604&view=1


GOP Firing Back?

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/13/2006

Campaign: As Democrats refuse to let up on former Rep. Mark Foley, some Republicans are returning fire. But they'll have to do a lot more fighting back if they want to win on Election Day.

Time and again Democrats prove themselves to be ferocious street fighters, especially in campaign season. When they get hit, they instinctively hit right back.

For instance, it was more than 15 years ago that Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was reprimanded for violating House rules to help his "roommate" Stephen Gobie, who was running a male prostitution service out of Frank's Washington apartment.

Democrats didn't make Frank resign, which Foley did instantly. And they certainly didn't cower or become paralyzed.

The brazen, unapologetic Frank remains in Congress, and will become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee if the Democrats gain control.

But lately, we must say, the GOP has been showing some grit:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., gave it to his possible 2008 presidential foe, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., after she blamed North Korea's nuclear test on the Bush administration.

McCain pointed out that "every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks."

Moderate Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., often sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican, but after his Democratic challenger, Diane Farrell, called for House Speaker Denny Hastert of Illinois to resign, Shays came out swinging.

He noted that "the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water and then hold a press conference the next day." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who did just that at Chappaquiddick in 1969, has campaigned for Farrell.


It's also encouraging that Republicans know that Americans care more about what was in Sandy Berger's pants than Foley's sleazy private life. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have called for a probe of Bill Clinton's national security adviser.

Berger was fined $50,000 after pleading guilty to seizing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives in 2003. He may have been covering up Clinton failures on terrorism.


But much more must be done.

After all, the Democrats' Senate leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, reportedly pocketed more than a million dollars in a land deal with a longtime friend who has mob ties. And Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who was found with $90,000 in cash hidden in his freezer and stands accused of a bribery scheme, remains in Congress.

The GOP has no excuse letting itself be seen as a party of scandal.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
Hopefully not too little too late..Why are Republicans so slow to anger and show teeth??? Especially in cases in which they are in the right.
 

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
The problem is they don't have much thats recent.

Nobody gives a shit about something that happened 15+ years ago.

How many Dems that are up for election this year were in office when that happened anyway?

It just sounds like whining and trying to avoid responsibility.

"But BUT MOM!! Remember when Billy..."

What I think people want to hear from a Rep up for election is that they are disgusted and disappointed in their leadership. People can respect that, of course it means biteing the hand that feeds... but i'm sure the establishment will forgive and forget if they retain their seat.
 

fuzzykitten99

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
200
Points
83
Location
You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
The problem is they don't have much thats recent.

Nobody gives a shit about something that happened 15+ years ago.
really? then why do dems care so much now about IMs from 3 years ago? Why were Dems SOOO interested in Bush's DUI 20-some years ago during the 00 elections? Why were dems SOOOO interested in Bush's military records from 30-some years ago to where Dan Rather and crew falsified documents just to get a few more voters?

Not only that, Foley's IM's didn't kill anyone. He's just a sick individual. Kennedy had the balls to LEAVE A WOMAN DROWN and then say that he has higher morals than any Republican. He didn't even serve time, or lose his job, even though he technically murdered her.

oh, i forgot...you're only interested if it aids your agenda.
 

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
really? then why do dems care so much now about IMs from 3 years ago? Why were Dems SOOO interested in Bush's DUI 20-some years ago during the 00 elections? Why were dems SOOOO interested in Bush's military records from 30-some years ago to where Dan Rather and crew falsified documents just to get a few more voters?

Not only that, Foley's IM's didn't kill anyone. He's just a sick individual. Kennedy had the balls to LEAVE A WOMAN DROWN and then say that he has higher morals than any Republican. He didn't even serve time, or lose his job, even though he technically murdered her.

oh, i forgot...you're only interested if it aids your agenda.
Franks was aired out in public a long time ago and is done and over with.

The IMs are recent public news and part of an ongoing investigation.

See the difference?

FWIW I never cared about the DUIs. The military service was somewhat relevent because we were/are at war.
 

Gem

Rookie
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
2,080
Reaction score
783
Points
0
The military service was somewhat relevent because we were/are at war.

Interesting....since we were told again and again how irrelevant Clinton's military record (or lack there of since not only was he a draft-dodger but he spoke publically about how much he "loathed" the US military) was when he was getting us involved in military conflicts and engagements all over the world.

In fact, to speak of Clinton's record was asking for major condemnation and criticism from the left for refusing to let the past alone...for refusing to allow that people could change, that Vietnam was an unpopular war...for refusing to acknowledge that a person's past military history (or lack thereof) was relevant to the military decisions they were making at present.

Please be honest here, RedHots, no one is saying that the Repubs didn't play these stupid games as well...but at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that the nonsense about Bush's military record was nothing more than a Democratic game to try to make Kerry look good and Bush look bad. If Bush had been "their" guy then his war record would have been handled just like Clinton's was....and anyone who mentioned it would have been shamed just like they were during the Clinton years. if your memory is foggy just check out how many Democrats came out in support of Bob Dole because his military record was so much more impressive than Clintons...please check up on the number of Dems who investigated Clinton's draft-dodging or his anti-military remarks....
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top