Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

Gee whiz bob! The Dems commit serious ethical violations and they are called criminals. And yet when the Cons commit acts that are 100% worse, they merely change the rules to save one of their own

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_go_co/delay

Tom Delay is a first class scumbag and if the Republican's were really about morality and ethics, would censor this POS and dump him back in Texas where he belongs. Well - that won't happen my friends - because Republicans only use ethics and morality as a poltical buzzword against the Dems.

 

" Some" Republicans, not all. I think DeLay should be held accountable.

You really need a good history lesson about the GOP. Do some research and see how many Republicans came out against the Vietnam War when Nixon was President.

Check to see how many in the GOP called for Nixon's resignation and then compare that to the number of Dems who called for Clinton's impeachment or resignation when he was guilty of lying under oath (committing perjury).

 

Re: Re: Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

Check out how many GOP came out against Reagan and Bush Sr over the Iran-Contra affair. Congress talked about impeachment then and this was a far more serious crime than civil perjury (something that is rarely prosecuted in the first place).

When the Republicans talk about ethics and morality, they are not referring to their religious beleifs, they are talking about using it as a political ploy against their enemies. They are masters at the pointing game. Well folks, the Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 years now. Are we really better than the previous 10 years? Hardly.

 

Regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, can somebody name one politician whose primary goal is not election or re-election?

Hate to be a pessimist but that seems to be what motivates them all...........

 

Are we better off than 10 years ago?

Yes we are. Despite the fact jobs and many key economic factors are down from 2001, they are better than they were 10 years ago. People complain IT jobs are disappearing but there are more people working in IT today than were in 1999. Unemplyment was 7% in 1994 and is around 5.5% today. This despite the fact our population is way higher today. People need to get their facts straight straight before they believe the political rhetoric....

 

Re: Are we better off than 10 years ago?

And don't forget the inflation rate is lower today than about six of the eight Clinton years.

 

I don't know if this is always accurate. Bush's poll number were down nearly all the way through the election. Yet, he held his ground and didn't reverse any decisions or policies just to win "reelection."

I think the same could be said about Jimmy Carter. He could have imposed price controls to bolster the economy, made a deal with OPEC or made some sort of unethical deal to have the hostages released in order to win reelection, but he didn't.

 

Admitted rightwing Republican here...and I think DeLay should be held accountable. Just like it would me a mistake to label all democrats as being extreme-leftist-liberals, it would also be a mistake to group all Republicans into one bag as well.

I think we, as a people, would be far better served if we limited senate terms as we do presidential terms. Real work tends to get done when you don't have to worry about re-election. If you're a senator, you always have re-election to be concerned with...self-preservation usually beats selflessness and sacrifice.

Pug

 

Yes. Ron Paul. No question about that.

Unfortunately, he's the only one I can think of.

 

Thanks

I went a did a quick search on Ron Paul and here is a quote I found.

"Dr. Paul's consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another Congresswoman added that "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

You don't hear those kinds of endorsements these days. I will do some studying.

 

Jimmy,
you and I agree almost 100% time politically. I too believe that W is man of principle, BUT the tactics used by the republicans to gain re-election were not any different than the tactics used by the democrats. He may not have compromised on issues important to us, but he gave way on immigration and social policy to "pick up some votes"

 

How about running up the biggest budget deficit in history, the ferderal government taking over education, and the denial of the right to free speech?

Are these among the issues that you classify as "not important to us?"

 

By grgrwll
Not at all, these are very important issues; however, I believe when evaluating political candidates, one will most likely never find someone who agrees with 100% of their positions, so we are "forced" to evaluate those two or three things that MOST important to us, and learn to either accept/effect those we do not.

I have a 22 year old son who is a pro-life democrat, very liberal in his social views. When we sit down and compare candidates, we find neither of us is married to an ideology, but we are driven by different priorities.

When I speak of issues important to me, they drive to three things currently:
1) Abortion. I know we will not agree on this, and that is OK. I am very much driven politically by pro-life candidates
2) National Security. I have 6 children and 2 grandchildren, I want the world to be safe for them.
3) Traditionalism. I am not now nor have I ever been a progressive and I believe that protecting the traditional values I hold dear is important.

That does not mean the issues you brought up are not important, but for me, they do not outweigh the ones that are at the top of my list. That makes George W a better candidate for me.

My son, on the other hand, is very much driven by
1) Privacy Rights. Even a hint of infringement really gets him going
2) Health Care. He and his wife were married as college students and their health care was basically praying they didn't get sick. He can very much relate to this issue
3) Corporate Culture. He believes compaines should earn a profit, but that the current administration has not been tough enough on corporate crimianals. He also firmly believes that living in obscene wealth while people are starving is purest form of evil.

That doesn't mean that abortion, security, etc. are not important, they just don't outweight the issues he is most passionate about. So for him, John Kerry was the logical choice.

We respect each other's opinions and have a great deal of respect for the other's priorities. It drives a very, very useful dialogue, respectful debate, and we learn a great deal about one another in the process. I don't think he is going to hell for being a liberal and he doesn't think I hate children because I am conservative.

I know this is a lot of information, but hopefully that makes things a little clearer concerning my statement.

 

<< I don't think he is going to hell for being a liberal ....>>

Liberals don't go to Hell????

 

Ron Paul is a political opportunist. He wrote a scathing letter to the GOP resigning membership.

He consequently joined the Libertarian Party to secure the Presidential nomination, which he did, in 1988.

I heard him speak at Hillsdale College (Michigan) and he was as phony as a three-dollar bill. Most who came away from the speech and Q/A session commented about his being a gadfly and one who spoke out of both sides of his mouth.

Nearly every question he was asked he pulled a Clinton before Clinton. He would say "What do you think..." or "What's your position...?" before he'd answer. Then he'd answer to please the speaker.

Much of what he said did not reflect earlier speeces or comments.

After a few years in the LP he joined a branch of the Constitution Party (He was a founding member.). A few years later, wanting to once again go back to Congress, he rejoined the GOP.

 

Michael, how's GSST?

I think Bush has a real heart for the downtrodden and his immigration policy is from the heart. There is not much different about his immigration views now than when he was Governor of Texas.

 

The Dems are all ranting about this rule change, however they don't even have a procedure in place to deal with such a situation.
In any case, the rule was a bad one to begin with. Whatever happened to "innocent untill proven guilty"?
Also, this DA apparently has a questionable history of bringing up politically motivated cases.

 

Re: Re: Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

Yes, what did happen to that?

I would love to hear you say right here that O.J. Simpson was absolutely innocent of murdering his wife. He was not (and now can never be) proven guilty of this crime. So let's hear it:

"O.J. was innocent!" Right?

Or does the standard only apply to "certain people."

 

Re: Re: Re: Ahh - once again the Cons are showing their partisanship

Murder is not comparable to campaign finance violations. But just for grins I'll address your question anyway.

First of all, I never said Delay was "absolutely innocent". You're putting words in my mouth again.

Secondly, OJ has been tried and found "legally" not guilty of muder. Tom Delay has not had a trial.

Due to the overwhelming amount of evidence presented in the trial I, as well as most reasonable people, believe he committed murder. Before the trial I had no opinion on his guilt. I afforded him the benefit of the doubt. as I will with Delay.

 

Jimmy,
GSST is going great, close to finishing, thanks for asking.

As I stated before, I think George W is a decent man, but I still think he is motivated by some of the same things that motivate all politicians.

In regards to his immigration policies, I think a guest worker program is a great idea, but not without more border protection. To offer what amounts to amnesity for lawbreakers with minimal effort to secure the border panders to the hispanic vote. A demographic he needed to get elected.

His desire to help may be geniune, but I would be better convinced if did more to stop the inflow.