Let's Hear that Ol Limbaugh Spin!
Rich Travsky
heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and pickups
in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
So what went wrong?
Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
RT
Jerry Watson
Day after: Rush says the Religious Right stayed home. I guess they don't
have "convictions."
jdw, BsD
M_Cat
<rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> spaketh thusly:
>Very early on during election returns we saw the GOP talking
>heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
>early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
>years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
>
>There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and pickups
>in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
>editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
>house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
>
>So what went wrong?
>
>Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
>ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
>Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>
>RT
"The forces of hate and fear" caused these results to happen......and the
American people threw a "temper tantrum". Mr. Limbaugh just proclaimed
this as I write. Ah, but I do love America.......................
Regards;
Rich Travsky
Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
dems?
It cost them over 270 million for this?
RT
Mark S. Bilk
>Will [the Republicans] blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY?
>Ooh, and the
>ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS?
Some of them are blaming it on Black people. Robert
Novak angrily sneered that Clinton's strategy of getting
Blacks to vote was working. It was very clear from his
words and facial expression that he was outraged at them
for voting, and felt that they really didn't have a right
to, that their votes counting as much as White people's
votes was fundamentally wrong. This was a very revealing
moment -- a Conservative letting his real beliefs show.
>(Speaking of which, too bad about ol Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
Bob "Shut Up, Fag" Dornan -- defeated for the second time
by a *Hispanic woman*. It's a shame she's not a lesbian,
also, but two out of three ain't bad. His idea of the
worst possible Hell has got to be losing a fight to such
a "morally inferior" person, and he is living in that
Hell right now. Considering all the harm that he's done
to others by spreading hatred from his previous position
of authority, his present and continuing anguish is
well deserved.
<LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
Frank DeCarlo
have lost control of the House in this election.
The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> Some of them are blaming it on Black people. Robert
> Novak angrily sneered that Clinton's strategy of getting
> Blacks to vote was working. It was very clear from his
You must be referring to his Nov 4th column (as it appears at
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/04nova.html).
Yes, he really does paint it as a black turnout. And yes, he
does seem miffed over it.
If he thought about it a little more, he'd keep his mouth
shut. He's merely confirming that the republicon notion of a big
tent is a myth.
> [...]
RT
It is by Rush alone that I set my mind in motion.
It is by the words of Rush that the lip begins to droop,
the lip acquires drool, the drool becomes a warning.
It is by Rush alone that I set my mind in motion.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>In article <364082...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>, Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote:
>
>>Will [the Republicans] blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY?
>>Ooh, and the
>>ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS?
>
>Some of them are blaming it on Black people. Robert
>Novak angrily sneered that Clinton's strategy of getting
>Blacks to vote was working. It was very clear from his
>words and facial expression that he was outraged at them
>for voting, and felt that they really didn't have a right
>to, that their votes counting as much as White people's
>votes was fundamentally wrong. This was a very revealing
>moment -- a Conservative letting his real beliefs show.
>
A fairly common reaction among the troglodytes. But the black and
latino vote was up from 1994 only moderately - 12%, per Salon.
The real big change was a big increase in union members voting. The
unions last time spent 35 million for ads. This time they put their
money into turnout efforts. It seems to have been a shrewd move.
>>(Speaking of which, too bad about ol Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>
>Bob "Shut Up, Fag" Dornan -- defeated for the second time
>by a *Hispanic woman*. It's a shame she's not a lesbian,
>also, but two out of three ain't bad. His idea of the
>worst possible Hell has got to be losing a fight to such
>a "morally inferior" person, and he is living in that
>Hell right now. Considering all the harm that he's done
>to others by spreading hatred from his previous position
>of authority, his present and continuing anguish is
>well deserved.
But we miss him. Bob Barr is pretty amusing - but nothing like B1 Bob.
After one particularly vitriolic speech on the floor of the house, in
which Dornan attacked Clinton particularly personally, the mike picked
up the comment of the demo walking to the podium brush Dornan and say
to him: You do that again, and I'll deck you. I wish I could remember
the name of the Demo hero.
Dornan running as the true latino. God, we need that sort of thing.
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
dlol...@my-dejanews.com
c...@work.org (M_Cat) wrote:
} On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:35:17 -0700, Rich Travsky
} <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> spaketh thusly:
} >Very early on during election returns we saw the GOP talking
} >heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
} >early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
} >years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
} >
} >There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and pickups
} >in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
} >editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
} >house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
} >
} >So what went wrong?
} >
} >Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
} >ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
} >Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
Rush put the blame mostly on the Republicans themselves. Said
their strategy was similar to running a "prevent defense" in
football.
} "The forces of hate and fear" caused these results to happen......and the
} American people threw a "temper tantrum". Mr. Limbaugh just proclaimed
} this as I write. Ah, but I do love America.......................
He was echoing the words that one of the network news anchors
(Peter Jennings, I think) made back on election eve '94.
He also said that considering the campaigns that the Republicans
ran, they should have lost a lot more. And he's right.
--
David Olson
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate
promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
--from "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic",
by Alexander Fraser Tyler
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frances Del Rio
I think of the conservative, Clinton-hater, Christian-coalition,
gun-toting types, who were hoping to gain a big enough majority in the
Senate to, among other things, outlaw abortion, use public money to fund
private and religious schools, put guns in the hands of as many folks as
possible, and above all throw our president out of office. Things may
change now too for things like tobacco legislation, HMO reform, minimum
wage, etc.
And what about Sen. Mitch McConnell? The Kentucky senator who has been
fighting campaign-finance reform tooth-and-nail? Russ Feingold (as in the
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill) won handily in Wisconsin,
even though he ran a campaign as though McCain-Feingold were already law
-- everybody, even Dems, thought he wd lose.. His opponent spent millions
on gutter ads against him and lost anyway, I think this is one of the
biggest victories for Dems in this election.
In the state of Washington, Sen. Patty Murray won against her opponent, a
very conservative candidate who was denied national GOP money for her
campaign by Sen. McConnell b/c she favors campaign finance reform... I
think McConnell is in big trouble now too... he and nootie both.... ah,
this is so sweet...... Also very sweet the Schumer victory against
D'Amato in New York and Boxer winning against bland Matt Fong here in
California.
Frances Del Rio
GO GORE GO!!!!!! GORE 2000
In talk.politics.misc Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote:
: Very early on during election returns we saw the GOP talking
: heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
: early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
: years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
: There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and pickups
: in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
: editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
: house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
: So what went wrong?
: Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
: ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
: Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
: RT
Mary E Knadler
>
>On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:35:17 -0700, Rich Travsky
><rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> spaketh thusly:
>
>>heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
>>early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
>>years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
>>
>>There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and
pickups
>>in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
>>editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
>>house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
>>
>>So what went wrong?
>>
>>Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
>>ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
>>Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>>
>>RT
>
the
>American people threw a "temper tantrum". Mr. Limbaugh just
proclaimed
>this as I write. Ah, but I do love America.......................
>
I guess you didn't see the NEGATIVE ads run by the Dems for
Black voters. Race baiting is sooooooo nice!
If you vote Republican more Churches will burn, more Crosses
will burn, more "brothers" will be assaulted (loud gunshot in
background.)
Negative ads work & the media looks the other way when the
Dems do it.
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
<rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes:
>
>Let's see, knocked off right wing biggies like Al D'Mafia, Lauch
>Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
>governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
>
>How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
>dems?
>
>It cost them over 270 million for this?
>
I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
Better start to show your brotherly love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yasmin2
Lloyd Parsons
Mary E Knadler wrote in message <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
The Christian Coalition helped get Faircloth out? I don't think so. I have
felt from the very start the the Christian Coalition was a paper tiger being
kowtowed to way more than they deserved.
Lloyd
Eric, da Red
Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote:
>Let's see, knocked off right wing biggies like Al D'Mafia, Lauch
>Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
>governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
>
>How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
>dems?
>
>It cost them over 270 million for this?
It goes beyond this.
Think of all the money spent in the past few years by the professional
Clinton haters.
Think of the relentless barrage of slime dispensed to millions of
people by right-wing talk radio.
Think of all the GOPish pundits on TV repeating the same litany of
KlintonKrimes every day for months.
Think of the $100million more spent by the Republicans than by the
Democrats.
Think of the mainstream media's eagerness to keep Zippergate in the
face of the American public.
Think of the mastery of image manipulation achieved by the Republicans
in the past twenty years.
Think of the 35million "voter's guides" distributed by the Christian
Coalition.
Think of the historical average of 27 House seats gained in an
off-year election by the Party not in the White House.
Then, read today's newspapers.
--
As Seen In talk.politics.misc: "Actually, I enjoyed his comments. I'm
definitely voting Republican this year. I'm homophobic, too, and quite
proud of it, really."
Eric, da Red
Jerry Watson <bsdw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>
>> Very early on during election returns we saw the GOP talking
>> heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the spin
>> early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
>> years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah blah.
>
>> There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and pickups
>> in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself, the
>> editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
>> house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
>
>> So what went wrong?
>
>> Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
>> ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
>> Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>Day after: Rush says the Religious Right stayed home. I guess they don't
>have "convictions."
Rush is wrong (big surprise!). The religious right did not stay home.
The unexpected factor is that women and blacks didn't stay home,
either.
Eric, da Red
>In article <364082...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>, Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote:
>>Will [the Republicans] blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY?
>>Ooh, and the
>>ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS?
>Some of them are blaming it on Black people. Robert
>Novak angrily sneered that Clinton's strategy of getting
>Blacks to vote was working.
Too bad that Novak's white boy club is crumbling. Boo hoo.
>It was very clear from his
>words and facial expression that he was outraged at them
>for voting, and felt that they really didn't have a right
>to, that their votes counting as much as White people's
>votes was fundamentally wrong. This was a very revealing
>moment -- a Conservative letting his real beliefs show.
They organized, they voted - just like the Christian right.
Funny how that works.
Novak is probably just annoyed that the USA doesn't have a House Of
Lords for him to sit in.
Mary E Knadler
>
>In article <36419b76...@news.cityusa.net>,
> c...@work.org (M_Cat) wrote:
>
>} <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> spaketh thusly:
>
>} >heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the
spin
>} >early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
>} >years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah
blah.
>} >
>} >There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and
pickups
>} >in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself,
the
>} >editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
>} >house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
>} >
>} >So what went wrong?
>} >
>} >Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
>} >ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
>} >Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>
>their strategy was similar to running a "prevent defense" in
>football.
>
happen......and the
>} American people threw a "temper tantrum". Mr. Limbaugh just
proclaimed
>} this as I write. Ah, but I do love America.......................
>
>(Peter Jennings, I think) made back on election eve '94.
>
>He also said that considering the campaigns that the Republicans
>ran, they should have lost a lot more. And he's right.
>
>
>--
>David Olson
>"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
> It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
> vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
> moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate
> promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
> the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
> fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
> --from "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic",
> by Alexander Fraser Tyler
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
Oh, Puhleese, you're not one of those are you. Going down
with your uh, uh, principles on is so uplifting. Yeah, we
DESERVED to loose, we're just not GOOD enough to win!!!!!
Oh, brother, give me a break, while all those Dems stick with
the "prevert" sick Willie. Doesn't that give you second thoughts
at all???????????????
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
<lpar...@GlobalEyes.net> writes:
>
>
>Mary E Knadler wrote in message
<71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> Rich Travsky
>><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
>>>governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
>>>
>>>How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
>>>dems?
>>>
>>>It cost them over 270 million for this?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>>races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>
>>Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
>>that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
>>
>>Better start to show your brotherly love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> yasmin2
>
>The Christian Coalition helped get Faircloth out? I don't think so.
I have felt from the very start the the Christian Coalition was a paper
tiger being kowtowed to way more than they deserved.
>
>Lloyd
>
>
>
Yes, the guy on C-Span said they liked Edwards because he had
stronger "family values". Also claimed the SC gov & Al Gov.
But Rush said alot of them stayed home too.
yasmin2
Garrett Johnson
> In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, yas...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
> The question is: will the GOP move to the center and dump the Christian
> right (or at least dump those who refuse to support centrism), and thus
> raise their national profile, or will the GOP cater to its extremes and
> give the Democrats yet another boost? If its the former, 2000 could be
> very, very, interesting.
The most fanatical Clinton bashers lost in this election. Obviously
the "Get Clinton" theme didn't attract many votes outside of the
core GOP support. Considering that the Dems have gained back
14 House seats since the increadible beating they took in 1994,
this should make the GOP stand up and take notice.
HOWEVER, the "Get Clinton" theme has been the most sucessfull
issue the GOP has had over the last 6 years at keeping their
core support united and energized. They can't just abandon it.
The GOP has rode this horse for awhile and they seem to be
running out of ideas (if this last election was any example).
What will happen next month when the GOP votes on new
leaders in the House? What will they do about the impeachment
proceedings? If they agree to strike a deal, it will anger the
Christian Coalition. If they proceed and recommend impeachment,
it will anger the moderates. For the first time in 4 years, the
GOP is in a worse position than the Democrats. They could
either revolt against their leadership, split, or both. Chances
are that something less extreme will happen, but you can
bet your bottom dollar that some major faction will be very
unhappy.
Greg Eschinger
the budget. I don't know who said it first, but I do think it is
accurate...
Republicans ran on nothing and the Democrats ran on a platform of scaring
people. And anything beats nothing.
Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote in message
news:364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu...
Rich Travsky
=> [...]
=> I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
=> races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
=>
=> Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
=> that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
I guess you didn't know that the KKKristian KKKoalition lost those
races for you!
Along, Noot, Lott, Limbaugh, etc.
RT
Scott Erb
says...
>If you vote Republican more Churches will burn, more Crosses
>will burn, more "brothers" will be assaulted (loud gunshot in
>background.)
What ad was that -- where was it played? I certainly didn't see anything
like that. (Just speculating here, trusting that you aren't making this
up, I'd say that sounds more like it would be a radio ad targetted for
urban areas, and probably worded in a way that would suggest what you say,
but not actually claim that if you vote Republican more churches would
burn. That doesn't justify the ad, assuming it exists, but at this point
that's the way both parties play the game).
>Negative ads work & the media looks the other way when the
>Dems do it.
Hardly. Whether it was D'Amato vs. Schumer, Boxer vs. Fong, they reported
on both (and in fact many times noted how negative Boxer's ads were, and
how much money she spent). The media doesn't give either side a free
ride, it seems to me.
Also the media has really been praising George W. Bush and the moderate
Republicans, something Al Gore and some Democrats probably are a bit
miffed about.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
>
>
The question is: will the GOP move to the center and dump the Christian
right (or at least dump those who refuse to support centrism), and thus
raise their national profile, or will the GOP cater to its extremes and
give the Democrats yet another boost? If its the former, 2000 could be
very, very, interesting.
cheers, scott
Mary E Knadler
That ad played in Missouri, Gephardt state. But as I said it was
worse than negative, it was "race baiting". If Repubs did that
it would be all over network news with all the ominous & terrible
prouncements of how "evil" the Republicans are. That is why I
say how can anyone say the tv mainstream news media are not
biased.
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
I live in the Northeast & am just thrilled with out new Republican
Gov. Up here just the thought of the Christian Coalition is enough
to turn people away from the Repb party.
But I vote for both Conservatives & Moderates but when the Christian
Coalition pulls this kind of deal & Rush said today they were justified
I get really angry with them. It's hard enough to try
to be a Republican here but then when they desert the party I
feel disgusted with them. They are the ones who were whining about
Clinton & his moral character & then what do they do jump ship &
blame Newt Gingrich. Starr dumped this whole report on the Repbs
& whatwas Newt supposed to do with it. I think they are a bunch of
wacos. They make no sense to me. If they want to join the Dems,
be my guest. I've had it with them.
yasmin2
for really nothing tbet
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>In article <36409A05...@geocities.com>,
>Jerry Watson <bsdw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Rich Travsky wrote:
>>
>>> heads (like Lott and Gingrich, even Dan Boy Quayle) starting the
spin
>>> early. You know, stuff like saying this'll be the first time in 70
>>> years a republican congress was elected for a third time, blah
blah.
>>
>>> There were the claims for double digit gains in the house, and
pickups
>>> in the senate and governorships. Heck, according to Rush himself,
the
>>> editor of the Limbaugh Letter was holding firm to a prediction of a
>>> house gain of THIRTY FIVE seats!
>>
>>> So what went wrong?
>>
>>> Will they blame VOTER FRAUD? How about CHINESE MONEY? Ooh, and the
>>> ever popular ILLEGAL ALIENS? (Speaking of which, too bad about ol
>>> Dornan, eh? Still a republiloser.)
>
don't
>>have "convictions."
>
>
>Rush is wrong (big surprise!). The religious right did not stay home.
>The unexpected factor is that women and blacks didn't stay home,
>either.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>As Seen In talk.politics.misc: "Actually, I enjoyed his comments.
I'm
>definitely voting Republican this year. I'm homophobic, too, and
quite
>proud of it, really."
The Religious Right did stay or vote Dem. See C-Span today.
REALMimi1
(Mary E Knadler) writes:
>Oh, Puhleese, you're not one of those are you. Going down
>with your uh, uh, principles on is so uplifting. Yeah, we
>DESERVED to loose, we're just not GOOD enough to win!!!!!
You DO realize that what you're responding to above was lifted directly from
Rush's show today, don't you? Rush and Roger Hedgecock BOTH blamed the
RepgunantCON loses on them.
Mimi Weasel
(these ERWWS sure make me laugh!)
Frank DeCarlo
Greg Eschinger <ge...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:WE702.1366$yE1....@server1.news.adelphia.net...
Bloody Viking
: Rush is wrong (big surprise!). The religious right did not stay home.
: The unexpected factor is that women and blacks didn't stay home,
: either.
And we can thank Kenneth Starr for campaigning for the Dems! When throwing
sticks, make sure the sticks aren't boomerangs!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
3256637 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington, III
>
>That ad played in Missouri, Gephardt state. But as I said it was
>worse than negative, it was "race baiting". If Repubs did that
>it would be all over network news with all the ominous & terrible
>prouncements of how "evil" the Republicans are. That is why I
>say how can anyone say the tv mainstream news media are not
>biased.
I agree with you Mary, sort of; the tv mainstream news media
IS biased... to make money... and each election season makes
big money for them. All those ads make money, and negative tv
ads almost demand a rely. Guess who makes money on those too.
Now Noot is blaming the liberal media; not for being biased
liberals, no, Noot says it is THEY who have concentrated on
salacious scandal-mongering, it wasn't the Nootsta, honest.
Noot learned early on when he declared war on the whitehouse
early this year saying he wouldn't miss any future opportunity
to talk about whitehouse ethics and scandals. Noot was obviously
speaking without realizing the utter hypocrisy of his rants
about morality and ethics, what with his adultery, divorce and
ethics investigations and fine. You may have noticed that he
promptly shut up shortly thereafter, quickly abandoning his
proclaimed moral duties to speak out, for obvious reasons.
Noot's latest attempt to blame the media is simply more of the
same hypocrisy. This makes it look like Noot is STILL out of
touch with reality and pretty clueless. No one likes hypocrites.
>
> yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
E Knadler) writes:
>
>In <wO302.1569$Qc3.3...@newscene.newscene.com> "Lloyd Parsons"
><lpar...@GlobalEyes.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>Mary E Knadler wrote in message
><71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>In <364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> Rich Travsky
>>><rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes:
>>>>
>>>>Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
>>>>governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
>>>>
>>>>How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
>>>>dems?
>>>>
>>>>It cost them over 270 million for this?
>>>>
>>>>RT
>>>
>>>
>>>races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>>
>>>Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
>>>that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
>>>
>>>Better start to show your brotherly love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The Christian Coalition helped get Faircloth out? I don't think so.
>I have felt from the very start the the Christian Coalition was a
paper
>tiger being kowtowed to way more than they deserved.
>>
>>Lloyd
>>
>>
>>
>
>Yes, the guy on C-Span said they liked Edwards because he had
>stronger "family values". Also claimed the SC gov & Al Gov.
>But Rush said alot of them stayed home too.
Also the Christian Coalition said the reason they went for
Edwards over Faircloth was & get this RT, was he said he attends
church regularly, favors the death penalty, & wants to cut taxes.
Also Edwards accused Faircloth of voting with Clinton over 200
times!!!!!!!!!! Imagine THAT!
Now don't you just love him. Isn't he your kind of guy
As I said you should extend your brotherly love to him.
Now you TOO can say you stand with the Christian Coalition
>
RIGHT??????????????????
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
<midt...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>
>> In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
yas...@ix.netcom.com
>> says...
>> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>
The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
Also he said they rejected Fong because he was too Moderate,
& had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
The races in SC & Al were about lottery issues & the guy said
the Repubs waffled on the issue.
Also he took credit for the 3 House seats in the House
that Martin Frost ran against more Moderate Repubs, one of
them in Ms.
He said they went for Edwards against Faircloth because he
attends Church regularly, is for the death penalty, & wants
to cut taxes. Also Edwards attacked Faircloth for voting
with Clinton 200 times. Now don't yoou just love him.
Now you too can be part of the Christian Coalition
with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
time because of them.
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
<rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>
>Mary E Knadler wrote:
>=> [...]
>=> I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>=> races for you....not the D'Amato race but the Southerns ones.
>=>
>=> Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
>=> that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
>
>I guess you didn't know that the KKKristian KKKoalition lost those
>races for you!
>
>Along, Noot, Lott, Limbaugh, etc.
>
>RT
But I just said they switched to your side, so now you have them
voting with YOU. Your guy Edwards attacked Faircloth for voting
with Clinton 200 times. Now how do you like him.
They said they went with him because he attends church regularly,
I guess Faircloth does not....is for the death penalty (I guess
you love that) & vowed to cut taxes. Imagine THAT. Gee,
maybe he will vote with the Repbs on some of the issues
after all.
Also three of the five seats the Dems won were pro-life
conservatives one from Miss. that they backed. See how close you're
getting to the Chritian Coalition. First thing you know you'll be
a born-again yourself.
You should listen to C-Span more, & quit listening to those
crummy networks news shows, so you get the true facts.
yasmin2
Edmund E. Freeman
wrote:
>In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, yas...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>>I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>>races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>
>>Gee, how does it feel to be part of the Christian Coalition
>>that you LOVE to BASH. They won your seats for you.
>>
>>Better start to show your brotherly love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>The question is: will the GOP move to the center and dump the Christian
>right (or at least dump those who refuse to support centrism), and thus
>raise their national profile, or will the GOP cater to its extremes and
>give the Democrats yet another boost? If its the former, 2000 could be
>very, very, interesting.
>cheers, scott
Either way, they are in sooo much trouble.
The Repubs need the Christian Coalition because of their solid
volunteer base. But, they can't actually pass CC legislation because
it honks the other 95% of the country. For a long time whenthey were
out of power the Repubs could get by appeasing the CC with noise.
Once they got into power in 1994, they had the problem of actually
having to pay all the bills the CC was presenting for past services.
In WA, the CC types are bolting ship into the American Freedom
party. Why should they work for Repubs when Repubs won't pass CC
legislation?
If the GOP goes moderate, their volunteer base goes away.
If they go right, their voters go away.
Either way ....
>
>
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Edmund E. Freeman Capitalism is good economics|
| http://www.blarg.net/~efreeman but lousy religion. |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Alex
The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
Also he said they rejected Fong because he was too Moderate,
& had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
The races in SC & Al were about lottery issues & the guy said
the Repubs waffled on the issue.
Also he took credit for the 3 House seats in the House
that Martin Frost ran against more Moderate Repubs, one of
them in Ms.
He said they went for Edwards against Faircloth
Great AFTER the election the Christian Coalition says "hey we were
pulling for Democrats!" -- "just because we didn't donate a dime to
Democratic campaigns, just because we sent out tons of letters and
leaflets touting Democratic opponents. We really wanted Democrats to
win!!" I know the Christian Coalition is exempt from paying taxes but
are they exempt from the commandment 'thou shall not lie' too? Maybe we
should have Ken Starr look into this. On second thought no he'll just
turn the lie into a criminal offense.
Gail Weasel
>
>
> But I just said they switched to your side, so now you have them
> voting with YOU. Your guy Edwards attacked Faircloth for voting
> with Clinton 200 times. Now how do you like him.
>
Oh, please. Edwards ran those ads after being attacked
by Faircloth/Finklestein calling him a Clinton Clone
Laywer who wanted to raise tobacco taxes.
It was a "Don't be silly, Lauch" ad.
> They said they went with him because he attends church regularly,
> I guess Faircloth does not....is for the death penalty (I guess
> you love that) & vowed to cut taxes. Imagine THAT. Gee,
> maybe he will vote with the Repbs on some of the issues
> after all.
>
He probably will. Senators are less partisan than
House members anyway.
> Also three of the five seats the Dems won were pro-life
> conservatives one from Miss. that they backed. See how close you're
> getting to the Chritian Coalition. First thing you know you'll be
> a born-again yourself.
>
Nice to see you turn on your own, Mary.
We Dems used to do that, but we don't any more.
It was actually the unions that got out the Democratic
vote and not the CC who are responsible for the
gains.
That and Starr/Newtie.
Gail
> You should listen to C-Span more, & quit listening to those
> crummy networks news shows, so you get the true facts.
>
> yasmin2
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
dfg...@my-dejanews.com
gjohnson@don'tbother.edu wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, yas...@ix.netcom.com
> > says...
> > >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
> > >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>
>
> > right (or at least dump those who refuse to support centrism), and thus
> > raise their national profile, or will the GOP cater to its extremes and
> > give the Democrats yet another boost? If its the former, 2000 could be
> > very, very, interesting.
>
This should help the right-wingers realize that they are actually NOT the
mainstream in this country. That is why they assumed a big victory, but it
was all in their minds.
Garrett Johnson
> In <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com> Garrett Johnson
> <midt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Scott Erb wrote:
> >> In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> yas...@ix.netcom.com
> >> says...
> >> >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
> >> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
> >
> > And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>
> The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
> as well.
Taking credit for defeating the GOP candidates?
> Also he said they rejected Fong because he was too Moderate,
> & had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
That's what I love about the Christian Coalition. Whenever a GOP
candidate loses, they say it was because he was too moderate.
> The races in SC & Al were about lottery issues & the guy said
> the Repubs waffled on the issue.
I seriously doubt they lost due to just one local issue.
> Now you too can be part of the Christian Coalition
> with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
> time because of them.
No thanks. You can keep the CC. I don't want any part of them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Eric, da Red
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com> Garrett Johnson
><midt...@hotmail.com> writes:
...
>>> >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>>> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>
>> And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
>as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
The Christian Coalition could take credit for oxygen. That doesn't
make it so.
>Also he said they rejected Fong because he was too Moderate,
>& had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
I hope that the Repugs take this to heart. Yup, you guys just aren't
conservative enough. Please spend a lot more time talking about
partial birth abortions and Internet smut. And please don't make the
Shrub your next Presidential candidate - a Quayl / Dornan ticket would
be a sure winner.
>Now you too can be part of the Christian Coalition
>with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
>time because of them.
It must have been amazing to see the head of the Christian Coalition
do this much talking with a mouthful of sour grapes.
Eric, da Red
><lpar...@GlobalEyes.net> writes:
>>The Christian Coalition helped get Faircloth out? I don't think so.
>I have felt from the very start the the Christian Coalition was a paper
>tiger being kowtowed to way more than they deserved.
>Yes, the guy on C-Span said they liked Edwards because he had
>stronger "family values".
Did Randy Tate explain why the Christian Coalition gave Faircloth a
100% rating on his voting record?
(http://www.cc.org/scorecards/98ES/s98elec.html)
Does the CC usually work against candidates they totally approve of?
Exactly who is pulling whose leg here?
>But Rush said alot of them stayed home too.
Rush is wrong, as usual.
Honestly, Mary, there really are conservatives who relay reliable and
accurate information - try searching them out, and stop using
blowhards like Rush Limbaugh for your data.
Note: the citizens of my state returned Patty Murray to the Senate,
who despite being a dim bulb is smart enough to get a Christian
Coalition rating of zero. You're welcome, America.
Mary E Knadler
>
>Mary E Knadler wrote:
>>
>>
>> But I just said they switched to your side, so now you have them
>> voting with YOU. Your guy Edwards attacked Faircloth for voting
>> with Clinton 200 times. Now how do you like him.
>>
>
>Oh, please. Edwards ran those ads after being attacked
>by Faircloth/Finklestein calling him a Clinton Clone
>Laywer who wanted to raise tobacco taxes.
>
>It was a "Don't be silly, Lauch" ad.
>
>> They said they went with him because he attends church regularly,
>> I guess Faircloth does not....is for the death penalty (I guess
>> you love that) & vowed to cut taxes. Imagine THAT. Gee,
>> maybe he will vote with the Repbs on some of the issues
>> after all.
>>
>
>He probably will. Senators are less partisan than
>House members anyway.
>
>> Also three of the five seats the Dems won were pro-life
>> conservatives one from Miss. that they backed. See how close
you'll be a born-again yourself.
>>
>
>Nice to see you turn on your own, Mary.
>
>We Dems used to do that, but we don't any more.
>
>It was actually the unions that got out the Democratic
>vote and not the CC who are responsible for the
>gains.
>
>That and Starr/Newtie.
>
>
>Gail
>> You should listen to C-Span more, & quit listening to those
>> crummy networks news shows, so you get the true facts.
>>
>> yasmin2
>
>--
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
Gail I've posted all this before. But Tate gave all these
reasons in his Press Conference on C-Span & even doing a Perot
with all his "charts".
Even on Rush's program today a CC said she voted for the pro-life
Dem. I'm not turning on my own. I'm not a CC member or even
that religious. I'm a "fiscal Conservative, also pro-choice.
If they want to help further the same values as I do then I
would not be speaking out against them, but when they let us
down who have to try to defend their being part of the Party
then at least they should show the same "loyalty".
They say they are for family values, but by their helping to
elect those Dems they are helping Clinton & at the same
time they want the Repbs to drag us thru an impeachment of
him. And make us look bad & take all the media flak!
If that makes sense to them....I wish they would explain it
to me.
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
>> >> In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>> yas...@ix.netcom.com
>> >> says...
>> >> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>> >
>> > And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and
Alabama.
>>
>> The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
>> as well.
>
>
>> & had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
>
>candidate loses, they say it was because he was too moderate.
>
>> The races in SC & Al were about lottery issues & the guy said
>> the Repubs waffled on the issue.
>
> I seriously doubt they lost due to just one local issue.
>
>> with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
>> time because of them.
>
>.
>.
>.
the CC. He said that they did not support those GOP candidates
in those races. He had reasons for all of them.
He was an angry CC & said they will not be taken for granted.
But Clinton thinks they voted for HIM! They are only interested
in pro-life candidates as far as I can see. But they took
Clinton off the hook & what moral & family values he has!
I think they're wacos.
yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>
>In article <71rbnn$r...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com> Garrett Johnson
>><midt...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>...
>
>
>>>> >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>>>> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>>
>>> And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>
>
>>The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
>
>
>The Christian Coalition could take credit for oxygen. That doesn't
>make it so.
>
>
>>& had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
>
>conservative enough. Please spend a lot more time talking about
>partial birth abortions and Internet smut. And please don't make the
>Shrub your next Presidential candidate - a Quayl / Dornan ticket would
>be a sure winner.
>
>
>>with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
>>time because of them.
>
>do this much talking with a mouthful of sour grapes.
>
>
>
not be taken for granted by the GOP. They like Edwards, not
Faircloth, didn't like James, Beasley, Fong, & they liked one
Dem pro-lifer rep in Miss. The other two he took credit for....
I don't know where they ran.
They backed the GOP candidates 13 percentage points less than
they did last election. So you can have them. They just saved
Clinton that great symbol of family & moral values. I hope
they realize THAT!!!
And that goes for CC Starr, too. He screwed up the election too
bringing out that report just weeks before the election. I really
believe the story would have been very different if he had
just waited a few more weeks or months.
,
> yasmin2
wi...@lightspeed.net
additional seats in the house, The leadership has caved in to every democratic
wish and then lied to cover their spineless voting record.
A tax break, not to be expected unless we can get a new party in power.
voting is a very simple process.
1. never vote for an incumbent.
2. never vote for an educator.
3. never vote for a lawyer.
4. Vote early and vote often.
Mary E Knadler
>
>In article <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com>,
> gjohnson@don'tbother.edu wrote:
>>
>> > In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
yas...@ix.netcom.com
>> > says...
>> > >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>
>> And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>>
Christian right (or at least dump those who refuse to support
centrism), and thus raise their national profile, or will the GOP
cater to its extremes and give the Democrats yet another boost? If
its the former, 2000 could be very, very, interesting.
>>
>...
>
>This should help the right-wingers realize that they are actually
NOT the mainstream in this country. That is why they assumed a big
victory, but it was all in their minds.
>
>
>
==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
There are many factions in the GOP....most of them being in the
Right Wing. Moderates are to the right of center, I would say.
But one of the factions, the CC took a powder on election day &
jumped ship without any warning. That is the problem. If they
had problems why not voice them before an important election
rather than risk losing control of the House.
It was a very childish action & has only emboldened Clinton to
now feel he's off the hook. Is that the message they really
wanted to send?
I thought this Randy Tate who is the present director of the
group sounded actually glad that they had done this. I think
he sounds very imature & if anyone is replaced it should
probably be he. I do not think Ralph Reed would have pulled
that deal.
yasmin2
y...@netscape.net
> The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
> oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows.
I've got one question...Why specifically do they want to oust Clinton?..I
don't mean just DEM./REB...party lines...I mean, give me a good reason why
they want Clinton Out?
No wonder Hyde wants
> to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
>
> ‰
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>
>In article <71qo1v$p...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>><lpar...@GlobalEyes.net> writes:
>
>
>>>The Christian Coalition helped get Faircloth out? I don't think so.
>>I have felt from the very start the the Christian Coalition was a
paper tiger being kowtowed to way more than they deserved.
>
>
>>Yes, the guy on C-Span said they liked Edwards because he had
>>stronger "family values".
>
>
>Did Randy Tate explain why the Christian Coalition gave Faircloth a
>100% rating on his voting record?
>
>(http://www.cc.org/scorecards/98ES/s98elec.html)
>
>Does the CC usually work against candidates they totally approve of?
>>Exactly who is pulling whose leg here?
>
>
>>But Rush said alot of them stayed home too.
>
>
>Rush is wrong, as usual.
>
>Honestly, Mary, there really are conservatives who relay reliable and
>accurate information - try searching them out, and stop using
>blowhards like Rush Limbaugh for your data.
>
>
>Note: the citizens of my state returned Patty Murray to the Senate,
>who despite being a dim bulb is smart enough to get a Christian
>Coalition rating of zero. You're welcome, America.
>
>
>
Randy Tate, head of the CC gave a press conference on C-Span
& stated all these facts. I did not get them from Rush.
He said they had dropped their support of GOP candidates by
13% in this election. They supported Edwards over Faircloth
as I stated.
C-Span is quite educational, maybe you should try watching it.
Frank DeCarlo
>
>
>> The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
>> oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows.
>
>I've got one question...Why specifically do they want to oust Clinton?..I
>don't mean just DEM./REB...party lines...I mean, give me a good reason why
>they want Clinton Out?
One word: revenge. Revenge for defeating Bush and throwing a monkey
wrench into the Christian Coalition's plans to convert this country into a
theocracy. Revenge for Iran-Contra. Revenge for Watergate. And so on.
luis hermosillo II
"Bob 'Shut Up, Fag' Dornan"
.....what is this quote in reference to? I imagine Dornan to be a
homophobe, but did he really say this?
you also said"
" defeated for the second time by a *Hispanic woman*. It's a shame
she's not a lesbian, also, but two out of three ain't bad. His idea of
the worst possible Hell has got to be losing a fight to such a "morally
inferior" person"
.........that is too funny.....and the asshole had the balls to blame
his first defeat on illegal aliens voting against him, which is
ridiculous.....being hispanic myself, I have come in contact with many
an illegal alien, and I can tell you that the political process is the
last thing weighing on the mind of someone who neither speaks english,
nor understands american politics........after working ten hours in a
field bent over picking veggies, coming home to hungry children that you
can hardly afford to feed and getting ready for your other job in a
kitchen washing dishes for 5.15, you don't have the energy or the time
to figure out a way to dupe the registrar into letting you
vote..........
...peace....
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
"I gotta lump in my throat 'cuz I just can't swallow my Brown Pride"
-FROST
"I'll do it so good, I swear I'll drink every ounce, then I'll hold you
tight, I'll hold you long and together we'll stand in silence......then
we'll try to imagine what it looks like.....yeah....we'll try to imagine
what silence looks like....." -PRINCE
"some seem to act like being brown is a crime......if that's true, I
guess I'm a criminal, 'cuz I'm brown to the maximum, never the minimum"
-Frank V of Proper Dos
"why is it that most of the people against abortion are people you
wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place?! -George Carlin
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
cem...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank DeCarlo" <fdec...@att.net> wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote in message news:364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu...
> >Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
> >governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
> >
> >How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
> >dems?
> >
> >It cost them over 270 million for this?
> >
> have lost control of the House in this election.
>
True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a fickle,
immature, shallow, greedy electorate to take a moral stand on anything. If
the economy were in bad shape, all of Clinton's mindless, cultie supporters
would want his head on a spike. As it is, they feign compassion and
sophistication, when in reality they can't see past their wallets.
Because most voters buy a newspaper only to read the comics, sports page, and
previews of the next Melrose Place, they are clueless about any substantive
issue. The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrester", got the
highest voter turnout in the country. I rest my case. It's voter idiocy
like this that allows a man like Bill Clinton to be elected twice and to
possibly get away with lying under oath and God knows what else.
Are you really that foolish? Do you really think a backlash from an
electorate of whining, self-centered brats vindicates Mr. Clinton?!? Are you
so naive as to think that our legal system should rest on the unstable whims
of a misinformed public? Was the OJ Simpson trial an example of justice?
Does his acquittal make him innocent?
Like most Clintonites, I suspect you link his being "forgiven" with a
relinquishment of your own moral responsibility. I can't imagine what else
would drive you to such an erroneous world view. I assume you voted for him.
Thanks for dragging our country through the mud and helping make the
presidency an R-rated topic I can't even discuss with my 9-year-old niece.
Remember this the next time you whine about a politician lying to you: Bill
Clinton lied to your face! Apparently, that's OK with you. If that's not
canine loyalty, I don't know what is.
I look forward to receiving the weak, feckless defense of your indefensible
position.
> The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
> oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
> to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Gail Weasel
>
> >It must have been amazing to see the head of the Christian Coalition
> >do this much talking with a mouthful of sour grapes.
> >
> >
> >
> No, he was very GLAD that they had done this. They said they will
> not be taken for granted by the GOP. They like Edwards, not
> Faircloth, didn't like James, Beasley, Fong, & they liked one
> Dem pro-lifer rep in Miss. The other two he took credit for....
> I don't know where they ran.
What are you talking about? The CC leadership supported
all those Republicans.
Members did not always follow their recommendations,
though, and the leadership decided to take credit
after the fact.
>
> They backed the GOP candidates 13 percentage points less than
> they did last election. So you can have them. They just saved
> Clinton that great symbol of family & moral values. I hope
> they realize THAT!!!
>
It just shows that even CC members can be independent
minded and vote for Democrats. They might be anti-choice
but want a state lottery for education.
> And that goes for CC Starr, too. He screwed up the election too
> bringing out that report just weeks before the election. I really
> believe the story would have been very different if he had
> just waited a few more weeks or months.
>
> ,
> > yasmin2
> >
> >--
> >As Seen In talk.politics.misc: "Actually, I enjoyed his comments.
> I'm
> >definitely voting Republican this year. I'm homophobic, too, and
> quite
> >proud of it, really."
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
Gail Weasel
>
>
> Randy Tate, head of the CC gave a press conference on C-Span
> & stated all these facts. I did not get them from Rush.
> He said they had dropped their support of GOP candidates by
> 13% in this election. They supported Edwards over Faircloth
> as I stated.
>
The Christian Coalition leadership supported Faircloth,
but now they are taking credit for the election of
a churchgoing taxcutting Democrat winning.
Last week they were calling him a liberal lawyer
Clinton clone.
Mary, has it occurred to you yet that Randy Tate
has an agenda?
It was more likely the votes of African-Americans,
union members and moderates that defeated Faircloth,
and not CC members.
I saw the same show as you did, and the CC did not
break down votes by states.
In my opinion, it was the Democrats who won the
governor's races who got the CC voters.
They ran on lotteries to help education.
Gail
> C-Span is quite educational, maybe you should try watching it.
>
Charles Board
> Randy Tate, head of the CC gave a press conference on C-Span
> & stated all these facts. I did not get them from Rush.
> He said they had dropped their support of GOP candidates by
> 13% in this election. They supported Edwards over Faircloth
> as I stated.
I live in North Carolina and I paid a lot of attention to
this race. I never heard even an inkling that the Christian
Coalition was supporting Edwards. And that would've been
*big* news around here.
Scott Erb
says...
>True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a
>fickle, immature, shallow, greedy electorate
Speaking of shallow...when people don't agree with you and vote
differently than your whim, you insult them. That kind of reaction speaks
more about you than about the electorate!
>to take a moral stand on anything. If
Since they didn't vote the way you wanted them to, they don't take a moral
stand on anything? How ridiculous and absolutely bizarre a claim!
>the economy were in bad shape, all of Clinton's mindless, cultie
>supporters would want his head on a spike. As it is, they feign
>compassion and sophistication, when in reality they can't see past their
>wallets.
Gee, they vote based on who they trust to handle the economy and the
nation's policies, not based on their own judgement of the moral life of
the person. You consider that irrational? I don't. Of course, a lot of
Republicans that despise Clinton may have voted Democrat because they
trust their representative or agree with who was running. After all,
Clinton wasn't even on the ballot (something you, in your haste to vent
your frustration that your side didn't do well, conveniently forgot).
>Because most voters buy a newspaper only to read the comics, sports page,
yada, yada, insult the voters because they don't follow your whim. I bet
you praised them in 1994 when they did agree with you. Don't you see how
childish and immature your reaction is?
>issue. The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrester", got the
>highest voter turnout in the country. I rest my case. It's voter idiocy
Minnesota almost always has the highest voter turnout. And what on earth
does that example prove?
>Like most Clintonites, I suspect you link his being "forgiven" with a
>relinquishment of your own moral responsibility.
Silly boy, its just that his errors aren't enough to make him leave
office, and he's doing a good job. But the election was because
democratic candidates for the House and Senate did in many cases a good
job convincing people they would be better to represent their district,
regardless of what the President did.
> I can't imagine what else
>would drive you to such an erroneous world view. I assume you voted for
You're just bitter because you don't like the election results. Grow up
and get a life. Sheesh.
>I look forward to receiving the weak, feckless defense of your
>indefensible position.
I'm amused by your sour grapes and bitterness, but it only shows that you
are immature and unable to deal with reality. Grow up.
gdy52150
wrote:
>In <71sp58$qp4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dfg...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>>In article <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com>,
>> gjohnson@don'tbother.edu wrote:
>>> Scott Erb wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>yas...@ix.netcom.com
>>> > says...
>>> > >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
>>> > >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
>>>
>>> And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>>>
>>> > The question is: will the GOP move to the center and dump the
>Christian right (or at least dump those who refuse to support
>centrism), and thus raise their national profile, or will the GOP
>cater to its extremes and give the Democrats yet another boost? If
>its the former, 2000 could be very, very, interesting.
>>>
>>...
>>
>>This should help the right-wingers realize that they are actually
>NOT the mainstream in this country. That is why they assumed a big
>victory, but it was all in their minds.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
>==----------
>>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
>
>
>There are many factions in the GOP....most of them being in the
>Right Wing. Moderates are to the right of center, I would say.
>But one of the factions, the CC took a powder on election day &
>jumped ship without any warning. That is the problem. If they
>had problems why not voice them before an important election
>rather than risk losing control of the House.
>
Has your tv been broken Mary? Did your paper boy break a leg? Is your
radio on the fritz? In case you missed it the religious REICH did
voice their problems a ways back, long before the election. And the
republiCONs sent the lottless one out as a mad dog demonizing gays as
a result of that rift. Face it theres going to be one hell ov a cat
fight among the republiCONs before this is all over. I would not be a
bit surprise to see the repubs split into two parties as a result.
>It was a very childish action & has only emboldened Clinton to
>now feel he's off the hook. Is that the message they really
>wanted to send?
>
>I thought this Randy Tate who is the present director of the
>group sounded actually glad that they had done this. I think
>he sounds very imature & if anyone is replaced it should
>probably be he. I do not think Ralph Reed would have pulled
>that deal.
>
> yasmin2
>
>
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Go...@my-dejanews.com
> I've got one question...Why specifically do they want to oust Clinton?..I
> don't mean just DEM./REB...party lines...I mean, give me a good reason why
> they want Clinton Out?
>
Oh, do you mean BESIDES that he purjured himself in court twice? Besides the
fact that he used others to lie for him? Besides the fact that he is a sexual
degenerate? Besides the fact that he blames everyone else for this, and not
himself?
Gee, I don't know WHY I want him out...
Johnny Allen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Go...@my-dejanews.com
>
> True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a fickle,
> the economy were in bad shape, all of Clinton's mindless, cultie supporters
> would want his head on a spike. As it is, they feign compassion and
> sophistication, when in reality they can't see past their wallets.
>
> previews of the next Melrose Place, they are clueless about any substantive
> highest voter turnout in the country. I rest my case. It's voter
idiocy
> possibly get away with lying under oath and God knows what else.
>
> Are you really that foolish? Do you really think a backlash from an
> electorate of whining, self-centered brats vindicates Mr. Clinton?!? Are you
> so naive as to think that our legal system should rest on the unstable whims
> of a misinformed public? Was the OJ Simpson trial an example of justice?
> Does his acquittal make him innocent?
>
> would drive you to such an erroneous world view. I assume you voted for him.
> Thanks for dragging our country through the mud and helping make the
> presidency an R-rated topic I can't even discuss with my 9-year-old niece.
>
> Remember this the next time you whine about a politician lying to you:
Bill
> Clinton lied to your face! Apparently, that's OK with you. If that's not
> canine loyalty, I don't know what is.
>
> position.
>
> > oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
> > to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
> >
> >
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Great points. You did forget, though, that the Clinton Kronies think he
shouldn't be put through this, since a personal matter in all. In fact, we
should ALL be able to lie in court, if we think the question is to personal.
Oh, and the fact that Starr is a dirty, dirty, mean old man.
You Clinton lovers have not a leg on which to stand. Why do you keep
fighting?
William Barwell
Eric, da Red <berg...@bigger.aa.net> wrote:
>In article <71rbnn$r...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>conservative enough. Please spend a lot more time talking about
>partial birth abortions and Internet smut. And please don't make the
>Shrub your next Presidential candidate - a Quayl / Dornan ticket would
>be a sure winner.
Quayle will fade very early in the race.
It's going to be Forbes in the lead, because he is going to spend, spend,
spend. And he now has the Christian right on his side.
If the Shrub Jr runs, he would have a chance because he is
NOT Forbes, a Christian far right lackey with a scary
economic plan that is supplyside and flat tax radicalism
that nobody wants anymore except dreamy libertarian type
Republican extremists.
Bush Jr. would be the centrist.
And he has no real track record, his best feature.
Nothing to criticize, and he doesn't shoot off his mouth
that much, so he doesn't have a long list of embaressments
to explain away.
Here in Texas, he doesn't do much, one reason he is popular.
He shuts up, and stays mainly out of the way.
Ask your average jerk in the street about anything Bush has actually done
and you will get blank stares.
He does have some good points. He has not joined in the usual
GOP tactics of demonizing somebody for political gain.
He has not gone after immigrants or Hispanics, has not
demonized Labor, has not been overtly and loudly confrontational
with the Democratic Party. Has avoided taking about religious
subjects. Isn't a social conservative.
If Forbes is seen as a social conservative, an ally of the Christian
Coalition, a flaky economic radical, Bush could win because he is not
and has no real track record to criticize, he'd be a hard target
thus to hit.
If he runs, gonna be interesting to see when the question of the party
platform arises. Bush could run off the Christian Coalition.
Of course, if asthe powerful Focus on the Family leader James Dobson
suggests, then they will stop going tocthe polls, this could have
consquences.
This could all be VERY interesting indeed.
Quayle would be a side show at best.
>>Now you too can be part of the Christian Coalition
>>with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
>>time because of them.
>
>It must have been amazing to see the head of the Christian Coalition
>do this much talking with a mouthful of sour grapes.
The battle for the soul of the GOP now starts.
It may be do or die time for the Christian Coalition.
They have two years til election time.
If they lose, Dobson has promised to lead a movement to lead
Christian Conservatives out of the voting booths.
Rule or ruin.
The GOP convention may be a very momentous event.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Eric, da Red
>>Did Randy Tate explain why the Christian Coalition gave Faircloth a
>>100% rating on his voting record?
>>
>>(http://www.cc.org/scorecards/98ES/s98elec.html)
>>
>>>Does the CC usually work against candidates they totally approve of?
>>>Exactly who is pulling whose leg here?
>>>But Rush said alot of them stayed home too.
>>Rush is wrong, as usual.
>>
>>Honestly, Mary, there really are conservatives who relay reliable and
>>accurate information - try searching them out, and stop using
>>blowhards like Rush Limbaugh for your data.
>Randy Tate, head of the CC gave a press conference on C-Span
>& stated all these facts.
He stated his OPINION.
Over here we have ... FACTS
Way over there we have ... OPINIONS
Fact: Faircloth has consistently garnered high ratings from the CC,
and they endorsed him.
Fact: The voter turnout among christian conservatives has been almost
level for the past few elections.
>C-Span is quite educational, maybe you should try watching it.
It's very nice for getting lots of pundits' opinions.
Scott Erb
>Oh, do you mean BESIDES that he purjured himself in court twice?
That's your allegation, which the President and his lawyers deny.
I know this is something you don't like, but we have this little "innocent
until proven guilty" thing in this country. If he committed perjury, I
think that once his term is over he can be indicted and be tried. But
given that Nixon's tax fraud wasn't considered impeachable, I doubt that
that alone, if true, is enough to remove him from office.
>Gee, I don't know WHY I want him out...
I don't know either, but I bet you'll just be frustrated. But don't
worry, on Jan 20, 2001 you'll be rid of him. After all, many Dems felt
the same way about Reagan in Iran-Contra, and had to wait until Jan 20,
1989.
Eric, da Red
William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>In article <71slnh$d0$1...@bigger.aa.net>,
>Eric, da Red <berg...@bigger.aa.net> wrote:
...
>>I hope that the Repugs take this to heart. Yup, you guys just aren't
>>conservative enough. Please spend a lot more time talking about
>>partial birth abortions and Internet smut. And please don't make the
>>Shrub your next Presidential candidate - a Quayl / Dornan ticket would
>>be a sure winner.
>Quayle will fade very early in the race.
Say it ain't so!
>It's going to be Forbes in the lead, because he is going to spend, spend,
>spend. And he now has the Christian right on his side.
One of the conclusions from the last few rounds of elections is that
money is a necessary (Jesse Ventura notwithstanding) but not
sufficient ingredient to win an election. Generally, of course, the
most campaign spending converts into victory, but we now have enough
cases of failed attempts to buy elections that we can reasonably doubt
Forbes chances.
At least, I hope so. I remember seeing political cartoons from the
1948 election portraying Tom Dewey as a cash register, and I get the
same feeling when I listen to Forbes. I just can't see the religious
right - who seem especially enamored of emotionally cathartic campaign
rhetoric - cuddling up to Forbes.
>If the Shrub Jr runs, he would have a chance because he is
>NOT Forbes, a Christian far right lackey with a scary
>economic plan that is supplyside and flat tax radicalism
>that nobody wants anymore except dreamy libertarian type
>Republican extremists.
I don't know much about the Shrub's record - but starting Tuesday
night the agglomerated televised wisdom has been asuring us that he's
a moderate, so for now he's the designated hitter.
>Bush Jr. would be the centrist.
>And he has no real track record, his best feature.
>Nothing to criticize, and he doesn't shoot off his mouth
>that much, so he doesn't have a long list of embaressments
>to explain away.
Why don't they just go all the way and nominate a bag of wet sand.
Hmmm ... maybe I'm onto something here.
>Here in Texas, he doesn't do much, one reason he is popular.
>He shuts up, and stays mainly out of the way.
Sounds like he'd make a good First Butler.
>Ask your average jerk in the street about anything Bush has actually done
>and you will get blank stares.
Isn't that normal for Texans anyway?
>He does have some good points. He has not joined in the usual
>GOP tactics of demonizing somebody for political gain.
>He has not gone after immigrants or Hispanics, has not
>demonized Labor, has not been overtly and loudly confrontational
>with the Democratic Party. Has avoided taking about religious
>subjects. Isn't a social conservative.
>
>If Forbes is seen as a social conservative, an ally of the Christian
>Coalition, a flaky economic radical, Bush could win because he is not
>and has no real track record to criticize, he'd be a hard target
>thus to hit.
With the way that the primary campaigns have been scheduled, a crucial
question for any candidate is: how will (or she) do in California.
>Of course, if asthe powerful Focus on the Family leader James Dobson
>suggests, then they will stop going tocthe polls, this could have
>consquences.
Maybe the religious right could start their own Party (hope hope
hope).
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
Alex <vo...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
>
> as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
>
> & had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
> the Repubs waffled on the issue.
>
> that Martin Frost ran against more Moderate Repubs, one of
> them in Ms.
>
> He said they went for Edwards against Faircloth
Oh, I see--"the guy from my party only agrees with me on some issues, so I'll
punish him by voting for the one from the other party who disagrees with me
on anything. I knew the Christianazis were idiots, but I didn't realize they
could be so juvenile. If the Republicans buy their bullshit (unlikely, since
moderate Republicans did better than ultra-conservatives this year), they
might just end up nominating an unelectable right-winger for president in
2000--just as they did back in 1964.
> Great AFTER the election the Christian Coalition says "hey we were
> pulling for Democrats!" -- "just because we didn't donate a dime to
> Democratic campaigns, just because we sent out tons of letters and
> leaflets touting Democratic opponents. We really wanted Democrats to
> win!!" I know the Christian Coalition is exempt from paying taxes but
> are they exempt from the commandment 'thou shall not lie' too?
There is no such commandment. There is one which says "Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy neighbor," prohibiting one highly specific and evil
kind of lie, and there are other, broader injunctions and admonishments
against lying in other parts of the Bible, but there is no "Thou shalt not
lie" in the Ten Commandments.
Maybe we
> should have Ken Starr look into this. On second thought no he'll just
> turn the lie into a criminal offense.
Naw, he only does that to people he doesn't like; Starr is a Christianazi
too, you know; it's okay for them to lie as long as their serving a godly
cause. :-P
matt...@my-dejanews.com
cem...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a fickle,
> immature, shallow, greedy electorate to take a moral stand on anything. If
> the economy were in bad shape, all of Clinton's mindless, cultie supporters
> would want his head on a spike. As it is, they feign compassion and
> sophistication, when in reality they can't see past their wallets.
So, what you're saying is that they're basing their support (or lack thereof)
of Clinton on his *job success*. How silly of them.
> Because most voters buy a newspaper only to read the comics, sports page, and
> previews of the next Melrose Place, they are clueless about any substantive
> issue. The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrester", got the
> highest voter turnout in the country. I rest my case.
Excuse me? Do you know anything about this race? How convenient of you to
leave out the fact that Ventura is a former Mayor, Navy Seal, etc. Have you
considered the possibility that Ventura won because he made intelligent,
realistic comments in the debates instead of trying to "spin" everything to
his party's interests? Of course you have considered that. I have, but then
I live in Minnesota and know what the hell I'm talking about. I've heard
plenty of people tell me why they voted for Ventura. All had pretty
intelligent reasons. None of them said it was because of his wrestling
prowess.
> like this that allows a man like Bill Clinton to be elected twice and to
> possibly get away with lying under oath and God knows what else.
>
> Are you really that foolish? Do you really think a backlash from an
> electorate of whining, self-centered brats vindicates Mr. Clinton?!? Are you
> so naive as to think that our legal system should rest on the unstable whims
> of a misinformed public? Was the OJ Simpson trial an example of justice?
> Does his acquittal make him innocent?
Do you really think accusation *proves* anything? Where's the smoking gun
(after $40+ million dollars...)?
> Like most Clintonites, I suspect you link his being "forgiven" with a
> relinquishment of your own moral responsibility. I can't imagine what else
> would drive you to such an erroneous world view. I assume you voted for him.
> Thanks for dragging our country through the mud and helping make the
> presidency an R-rated topic I can't even discuss with my 9-year-old niece.
>
Umm...who made this R rated?
> Remember this the next time you whine about a politician lying to you:
Bill
> Clinton lied to your face! Apparently, that's OK with you. If that's not
> canine loyalty, I don't know what is.
No kidding, but what's your point? Personally, I voted against Clinton (and
would do so again), but what does that have to do with anything? Are you
really suggesting that what he did is an impeachable offense? According to
William Weld (Repub., former AG, former Federal Prosec.), this isn't an
offense that would even be prosecuted for a "normal" person -- how can it be
impeachable? Your problem is that you want to have another election now and
vote Clinton out. That's not how it works. The public backlash is due to
the fact that people know the bashing of Clinton is about political gain --
not about due process or fairness. And their sick of the partisan politics.
Minnesotans certainly are -- they showed it on Tuesday despite your "spin".
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
Go...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a fickle,
> > immature, shallow, greedy electorate to take a moral stand on anything. If
> > the economy were in bad shape, all of Clinton's mindless, cultie supporters
> > would want his head on a spike. As it is, they feign compassion and
> > sophistication, when in reality they can't see past their wallets.
Actually, that is sophistication. Unlike the myopic moralists of the
Christian right, most American voters recognize that the president's sexual
peccadilloes have little or no bearing on his fitness for office. Until the
Republicans get it through their thick skulls that people don't like being
preached at, their going to keep losing elections. Next time around, they'll
have to defend all those Senate seats they gained in '94; I think we're going
to recover our majority in the upper house, as long as the economy stays on
track.
> > Because most voters buy a newspaper only to read the comics, sports page,
> > and previews of the next Melrose Place, they are clueless about any
> > substantive issue.
This voter reads the major news stories and editorials, never the sports page
or anything to do with soap operas, thank you very much. I do like the
comics, though, especially "Dilbert" and "Doonesbury."
> > The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrester", got the
> > highest voter turnout in the country. I rest my case.
I would have voted for Humphrey in that race; I'm as appalled as you are about
"Jesse the Body" getting elected. What a cretin!
> > It's voter idiocy
> > like this that allows a man like Bill Clinton to be elected twice and to
> > possibly get away with lying under oath and God knows what else.
Apparently nothing else, despite the desperate attempts of conservative
extremists to find something.
> > Are you really that foolish? Do you really think a backlash from an
> > electorate of whining, self-centered brats vindicates Mr. Clinton?!? Are you
> > so naive as to think that our legal system should rest on the unstable whims
> > of a misinformed public? Was the OJ Simpson trial an example of justice?
> > Does his acquittal make him innocent?
No, but that's irrelevant. This impeachment is a political misuse of a
punishment intended for far graver offenses than the one at hand; it is
similar in character to the last proceeding to come to trial, the politically
motivated impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. (Johnson violated an
unconstitutional law passed by Congress over his veto for the express purpose
of creating an excuse for impeachment; Clinton lied in response to an
irrelevant question asked in a frivolous lawsuit backed by right-wing zealots
for the express purpose of undermining his presidency.)
> > Like most Clintonites, I suspect you link his being "forgiven" with a
> > relinquishment of your own moral responsibility. I can't imagine what else
> > would drive you to such an erroneous world view. I assume you voted for
> >him.
No, I actually voted for his agenda, which he has betrayed by placing his
sexual desires above the best interests of his family, nation, and party.
I'm pissed off at him, but unlike him, I won't let my petty desires (for
revenge, in this case) compromise my loyalty to the progressive agenda of the
Democratic Party.
> > Thanks for dragging our country through the mud and helping make the
> > presidency an R-rated topic I can't even discuss with my 9-year-old niece.
Thank Ken Starr.
> >
> > > The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
> > > oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
> > > to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
> Great points. You did forget, though, that the Clinton Kronies think he
> shouldn't be put through this, since a personal matter in all. In fact, we
> should ALL be able to lie in court, if we think the question is to personal.
No. He shouldn't have lied, and he deserves to be censured for it. Not
impeached; we reserve that for more serious offenses, such as perjury on
questions directly affecting our national security or the integrity of our
political process (read Iran-Contra and Watergate, respectively). What
Clinton should have done is asserted that the questions were irrelevant, and
refused to answer. Telling the truth in this case would have been
dishonorable, because of the potential harm both to his family and to his
erstwhile mistress's reputation (which she has since helped drag through the
mud on her own initiative, but that's neither here nor there).
> Oh, and the fact that Starr is a dirty, dirty, mean old man.
I don't know about dirty, but Grand Inquisitor Starr is certainly a self-
righteous, hypocritical, mean-spirited, puritanical prig.
> You Clinton lovers have not a leg on which to stand. Why do you keep
> fighting?
Silly question; why should we give up when we're winning?
J. A. Harman
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
> Gail I've posted all this before. But Tate gave all these
> reasons in his Press Conference on C-Span & even doing a Perot
> with all his "charts".
>
> Even on Rush's program today a CC said she voted for the pro-life
> Dem. I'm not turning on my own. I'm not a CC member or even
> that religious. I'm a "fiscal Conservative," also pro-choice.
Maybe you should vote Libertarian--if enough Republicans got disgusted with
the CC and went Libertarian, they might become the dominant conservative
party, while the Christian fascists who remained in the GOP faded into
third-party obscurity. Actually, fiscal conservatism got the shaft from
everyone this year; Clinton and the Congress took an imaginary surplus (based
on looting Social Security), and passed an incredibly bloated budget packed
with pork from every Senator and Rep on the hill, Republican and Democrat
alike. My feeling is that any surplus we get should go directly into debt
reduction, but that's not the kind of issue that wins votes. I wouldn't mind
seeing a flat tax, either--but not the Steve Forbes version, which exempts
all investment income (which would save Forbes himself upwards of $12 million
a year). Mine would be a flat rate of 25% on ALL income from any source,
with a personal/dependent deduction based on what it actually costs to
comfortably feed, clothe, and shelter one person for one year--somewhere in
excess of $10,000. Thus, a family of five with a net income of up to $50,000
a year would pay no taxes, and a single CEO making a million a year would pay
$250,000--certainly more than he would under the current labyrinthine system
of deductions, loopholes, and shelters. As the liberal said to the
libertarian, "I agree: let's cut taxes--from the bottom up-- and end
welfare--from the top down."
> If they want to help further the same values as I do then I
> would not be speaking out against them, but when they let us
> down who have to try to defend their being part of the Party
> then at least they should show the same "loyalty".
They don't feel any loyalty to people like you, Mary; all they really care
about is their extremist "moral" agenda. They're no better than the
socialists who tried to pull the Democratic party way out to the left earlier
this century. Actually, the CC are the political descendants of the populists
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--William Jennings Bryan
and his ilk.
> They say they are for family values, but by their helping to
> elect those Dems they are helping Clinton & at the same
> time they want the Repbs to drag us thru an impeachment of
> him. And make us look bad & take all the media flak!
Yup. They're incapable of grasping the idea that the majority of Americans
disagree with their narrow-minded concept of "morality." Strange as it may
seem, they suffer from the delusion that they are the mainstream. It's the
provincial mindset; most CC types have grown up in rural communities
populated almost exclusively by evangelical Christians; since most of the
people they know agree with them, they tend to assume that most of the people
they don't know agree with them as well, and they stubbornly resist all
evidence to the contrary (much like their belief in the literal truth of the
biblical creation myth).
> If that makes sense to them....I wish they would explain it
> to me.
Sense is not their strong suit; they're people of faith, and faith is the
antithesis of reason. What they're doing is throwing a temper tantrum: "If
the Republican Congress doesn't do exactly what we want, we'll let the
Democrats have Congress back! So there!" It a kind of juvenile, selfish,
"if I can't have it, nobody can" mentality.
matt...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> >> In <3640EEBB...@hotmail.com> Garrett Johnson
> >> <midt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >> In article <71qgtc$i...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> yas...@ix.netcom.com
> >> >> says...
> >> >> >I guess you didn't know that the Christian Coalition won those
> >> >> >races for you....not the D'Amato race but the southerns ones.
> >> >
> Alabama.
> >>
> >> The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
> >> as well.
> >
> >
> >> & had taken money from log-cabin Repbs. Sooooooooooo!
> >
> >candidate loses, they say it was because he was too moderate.
> >
> >> the Repubs waffled on the issue.
> >
> >
> >> with your pro-life members instead of bashing Repbs all the
> >> time because of them.
> >
> >.
> >.
> >.
> What I posted was from the press conference of Randy Tate, head of
> the CC. He said that they did not support those GOP candidates
> in those races. He had reasons for all of them.
>
> He was an angry CC & said they will not be taken for granted.
> But Clinton thinks they voted for HIM! They are only interested
> in pro-life candidates as far as I can see. But they took
> Clinton off the hook & what moral & family values he has!
>
> I think they're wacos.
>
> yasmin2
Are you listening, or are you just talking to yourself? Tate had two options:
(1) Admit that their ideas are extreme and don't enjoy wide support.
(2) Claim that they "won" by spinning the election results (and who they
supported).
You keep insisting that the CC "won" just because Tate says it is so.
What people here are trying to tell you is that Tate is just spinning the
issues when he tries to claim victory. When, in reality, the CC was unable
to keep it's people in line.
Politics as usual. Everyone claims victory. Worst case: you have to claim
that you weren't able to "get your message out".
People are tired of this crap. At least, we are in Minnesota. ;)
Frank DeCarlo
Great post. That sums up the last four years perfectly. All these hypocrites
jumping up and down about perjury when it took them FOUR YEARS and
wading through Whitewater, "Filegate" (what a joke THAT was), Vince
Foster and assorted other non-issues trying to find something to nail Clinton
with. And the best they could come up with is getting him to lie about an
extramarital affair. PITIFUL.
Now that the Republicans know the American people are fed up with their
do-nothing Congress, let's sit back and watch while the hate monger
cannibals turn on themselves. Noot will be lucky to survive.
Mary E Knadler
Coalition
>> >do this much talking with a mouthful of sour grapes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> not be taken for granted by the GOP. They like Edwards, not
>> Faircloth, didn't like James, Beasley, Fong, & they liked one
>> Dem pro-lifer rep in Miss. The other two he took credit for....
>> I don't know where they ran.
>
>What are you talking about? The CC leadership supported
>all those Republicans.
>
>Members did not always follow their recommendations,
>though, and the leadership decided to take credit
>after the fact.
>
>
>>
>> They backed the GOP candidates 13 percentage points less than
>> they did last election. So you can have them. They just saved
>> Clinton that great symbol of family & moral values. I hope
>> they realize THAT!!!
>>
>
>It just shows that even CC members can be independent
>minded and vote for Democrats. They might be anti-choice
>but want a state lottery for education.
>
No, they are against gambling. But they said Beasley flipped-flopped
on that issue & Fob James did not say it was "morally" wrong,
he just said it would not bring in enough money for the schools.
With them you cannot waver from the purest line that something
is morally wrong, period
Also I really thing pro-life IS their only issue when you really
look at their voting records.
yasmin2
Gail Weasel
>
>
> Great points. You did forget, though, that the Clinton Kronies think he
> shouldn't be put through this, since a personal matter in all. In fact, we
> should ALL be able to lie in court, if we think the question is to personal.
>
> fighting?
Pure unadulterated stubborness.
Oh, plus we have the law, history and the people on
our side.
Gail
>
> Johnny Allen
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
vpa...@iastate.edu
: In article <71v9p9$5np$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
: William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
: >Of course, if asthe powerful Focus on the Family leader James Dobson
: >suggests, then they will stop going tocthe polls, this could have
: >consquences.
: Maybe the religious right could start their own Party (hope hope
: hope).
Dobson voted for the U.S. Taxpayers Party last time. You know, the one
that wants to eliminate paper money, the evil Federal Reserve conspiracy,
reform laws along biblical lines. I suspect there's a chance Pat
Buchanan may run for them in 2000 after he gets his usual mugging from
the GOP establishment in he primaries.
Actually, Pat Robertson chided Dobson yesterday for this, saying the GOP
should not be influenced by a guy who didn't vote for them in '96. And
BTW, Robertson supports George W. Bush.
Lesse, Gore and Bush and Buchanan and Ventura in 2000. Looking a lot
like Jesse "The Body" succeeding Bill "The Bawdy".
Vic
: --
Mary E Knadler
>
>
>I saw the same show as you did, and the CC did not
>break down votes by states.
>
>In my opinion, it was the Democrats who won the
>governor's races who got the CC voters.
>
>They ran on lotteries to help education.
>
>>Gail
>
Figures I've seen in S.C. show that middle-class suburban &
upper middle-class voters were not there for Beasley. The Dems
picked up the Black vote but broke even in those areas.
That is where the GOP voters would be.
Conservatives have been known to stay home if they don't like
the choices. The Dem only got 53% of the vote so a few more CCs
might have done the trick.
With Edwards he is a wealthy Trial lawyer who is worth l4 mil.
He spent 3 million of his own money. I've read the write-up on
him & it said he did not talk about issues, but focused on his
independence as a candidate who took no money from special
interests. From that I would say he got no union support.
As I posted before Tate said they liked that he attended church
regularly, favored the death penalty & vows to cut taxes.
Sound like he should have been in the GOP but also sounds like
a perfec CC to me.
I also don't know who you are referring to when you say "they".
Are you quoting the CC or the Republicans. They are separate
groups. Under Ralph Reed they have usually gotton out the
vote for the GOP but this election they along with other
Conservative leaders were very angry at the GOP Congress.
Of course I know they have an agenda, but that agenda does not
always coincide with the GOP in other parts of the country.
In my area the CC is like a poison pill. Even my husband's
sister is a disillusioned GOPer because of the abortion
issue.
That is why I'm getting tired of losing people who should be
voting for the GOP because of other issues are being turned
off by the CC & their very moralistic, religious agenda.
I have never spoken out before because I thought we should have
the big-tent concept, but if they don't stay in the tent, what
happens to those of us who try to stay in even tho their
agenda is quite diverse from ours. It has to work both ways
I think it just became much more apparent in this election.
I'm sure you are seeing from the papers & tv I'm not the only
one who has suddenly come to this conclusion.
Brad Macdonald
> Figures I've seen in S.C. show that middle-class suburban &
> upper middle-class voters were not there for Beasley. The Dems
> picked up the Black vote but broke even in those areas.
> That is where the GOP voters would be.
>
> Conservatives have been known to stay home if they don't like
> the choices. The Dem only got 53% of the vote so a few more CCs
> might have done the trick.
>
> With Edwards he is a wealthy Trial lawyer who is worth l4 mil.
> He spent 3 million of his own money. I've read the write-up on
> him & it said he did not talk about issues, but focused on his
> independence as a candidate who took no money from special
> interests. From that I would say he got no union support.
I've little knowledge of that race, but have the impression that Edwards
is not only a trial lawyer, but one who specializes in injury cases.
(Correct me, if I am wrong?) What does that say about the non-CC
Republicans (Quayle et al) trying to make an issue of them folks?
> As I posted before Tate said they liked that he attended church
> regularly, favored the death penalty & vows to cut taxes.
>
> Sound like he should have been in the GOP but also sounds like
> a perfec CC to me.
>
> I also don't know who you are referring to when you say "they".
> Are you quoting the CC or the Republicans. They are separate
> groups. Under Ralph Reed they have usually gotton out the
> vote for the GOP but this election they along with other
> Conservative leaders were very angry at the GOP Congress.
Ralph Reed still hasn't lost his CC foolishness. On CNN the other night
he equated Clinton's favoring public education and opposition to school
vouchers to George Wallace's famous, physical attempt to prevent Blacks
from attending the University of Alabama back in the sixties. Reed did so
after Tuesday's elections, but I hope he lofts this notion again and
again, as it will certainly bring African-Americans out to vote for
Democrats. What a moron. Half of his candidates lost. Duh?
> Of course I know they have an agenda, but that agenda does not
> always coincide with the GOP in other parts of the country.
> In my area the CC is like a poison pill. Even my husband's
> sister is a disillusioned GOPer because of the abortion
> issue.
Not to mention that your husband is a g.d.i.? (Frat lingo -- but you know
what I mean?)
> That is why I'm getting tired of losing people who should be
> voting for the GOP because of other issues are being turned
> off by the CC & their very moralistic, religious agenda.
>
> I have never spoken out before because I thought we should have
> the big-tent concept, but if they don't stay in the tent, what
> happens to those of us who try to stay in even tho their
> agenda is quite diverse from ours. It has to work both ways
> I think it just became much more apparent in this election.
> I'm sure you are seeing from the papers & tv I'm not the only
> one who has suddenly come to this conclusion.
I know of friends of mine from my home state of Florida who would likely
vote Republican, were it not for its staunch anti-abortion stance, and the
GOP's anti-environmental direction.
Congrats to Geo. W. Bush on taking a pass at the last CC convention. If
there was ever a craven sight, it was Steve Forbes there talking about how
abortion is his number one issue, as if he would care a jot about it if he
weren't trying to win Republican primaries in the Bible belt.
btw, I think Jeb Bush's success in winning the Florida gubernatorial race
is the mirror image of the Clinton versus Dole. Clinton went right, Bush
went left -- both were facing old, rather unexciting opposition
candidates (Dole and McKay) who got their party's nominations mostly
because only they were deemed next-in-line -- a failure from party
loyalty. Discuss. ;)
Brad
atwood
>
>I don't know much about the Shrub's record - but starting Tuesday
>night the agglomerated televised wisdom has been asuring us that he's
>a moderate, so for now he's the designated hitter.
One thing everyone forgets (for now) about Shrub: he's got a "Clinton
problem" with his private life. Lots of whoring, boozing, etc. General
public might not care, but the religious nuts who have veto power in the
Republican party won't stand for it. The Repubs will do a background check
one one of these days, quite discreetly, and then just as discreetly Shrub
will drop from public view.
William Barwell
No, it could work FOR him. If there is a fight between the
CC and Bush, more people would trust him if he was to tell them off
than if he was to slink away because of them. Clinton may
have opened the way here for him. People would just be sick of this
sort of crap and would hate the CC that more for their effort to bring up
his wild past.
It would provide 'credentials' that Bush would not be pushed around by the
fanatics. He could go on to take them on in regards to abortion and
end the CC's reaign of terror at GOP convetions and make the "big Tent"
reality rather than sick rhetoric.
This would help with the GOP's gender gap problem.
Sooner or later, the GOP has to deal with the CC problem.
Bush could possibly be the guy.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>> Gail I've posted all this before. But Tate gave all these
>> reasons in his Press Conference on C-Span & even doing a Perot
>> with all his "charts".
>>
>> Even on Rush's program today a CC said she voted for the pro-life
>> Dem. I'm not turning on my own. I'm not a CC member or even
>> that religious. I'm a "fiscal Conservative," also pro-choice.
>
>Maybe you should vote Libertarian--if enough Republicans got disgusted with
>the CC and went Libertarian, they might become the dominant conservative
>party, while the Christian fascists who remained in the GOP faded into
>third-party obscurity. Actually, fiscal conservatism got the shaft from
>everyone this year; Clinton and the Congress took an imaginary surplus (based
>on looting Social Security), and passed an incredibly bloated budget packed
>with pork from every Senator and Rep on the hill, Republican and Democrat
>alike. My feeling is that any surplus we get should go directly into debt
>reduction, but that's not the kind of issue that wins votes.
Why? Bonds are paying less than six percent. You don;t think there are
better investments?
I wouldn't mind
>seeing a flat tax, either--but not the Steve Forbes version, which exempts
>all investment income (which would save Forbes himself upwards of $12 million
>a year). Mine would be a flat rate of 25% on ALL income from any source,
>with a personal/dependent deduction based on what it actually costs to
>comfortably feed, clothe, and shelter one person for one year--somewhere in
>excess of $10,000. Thus, a family of five with a net income of up to $50,000
>a year would pay no taxes, and a single CEO making a million a year would pay
>$250,000--certainly more than he would under the current labyrinthine system
>of deductions, loopholes, and shelters. As the liberal said to the
>libertarian, "I agree: let's cut taxes--from the bottom up-- and end
>welfare--from the top down."
Bet it would lead to deficits.
>
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
Mary E Knadler
in their voting guides.
He said they supported Edwards against Faircloth or was he
lying. What would be his reason for lying? I think alot
of Conservatives were disenchanted with the GOP & many have
spoken out & asked the leadership to resign which Newt did
this evening.
I personally think it's going to prove to be a huge mistake.
When one starts to take the advise of Arianna Huffington, I
think it's all over for anymore GOP majorities in Congress.
I think she knows next to nothing about the Conservative
movement. There have been many ups & downs but this
could be a big blow that will take a long time to
recover from.
But of course the "pervert" in the WH will carry
on with business as usual with all the Dems backing
him completely.
Too bad we have people like Huffington, Bill Crystle, the
neo-conservative calling the shots. Even Rush was in
favor of this. But I think he is also very wrong.
yasmin2
y...@netscape.net
>> all of Clinton's supporters
>> would want his head on a spike.
Oh so very true...Instead of "why don't the Rebs. get to the people's
business" it would be, "Why is Clintonz fooling around instead of doing the
'people's work??' But remember, is was Clinton and he alone that made the
allegation that 'the people's business' needed such attention...actually he
was in China kissing butt with the RCA...or in Africa or Russia or Ireland or
playing Golf.
Besides haven't these folks ever heard of Laissez Faire economics?
>> The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrestler", got the
>> highest voter turnout in the country. It's voter idiocy
Here Here...Gingrich goes on television and insinuates the same thing as
you...and next day...he resigns. I'm waiting for Randy Macho Man Savage Lt.
Gov. of Iowa!
>> Does his acquittal make him innocent?
No...it just gives him the opprotunity to kill again.
ste...@cdsnet.net
>
> True, it seems a shame to waste so much money attempting to sway a fickle,
> immature, shallow, greedy electorate to take a moral stand on anything. If
> would want his head on a spike.
65% approval doesn't sound like a "cult" to me. As far as the economy
goes, during bad economic times ANY incumbent winds up with his head on a
proverbial spike.
>
> I rest my case.
No you didn't, you still babbled on and on!
> It's voter idiocy like this that allows a man like Bill Clinton to be
> elected twice and to possibly get away with lying under oath and God
> knows what else.
Sorry you don't approve of democracy. Lying under oath? Given the
non-material line of questioning from the Starr-struck Jones attorneys,
the President was well within his rights to blow off his inquisitors.
In order for perjury to occur, the questions raised in a court of law
must be material to the case. Prodding into one's private life may well
be the type of Gestapo tactic you approve of. If so, consider moving to
Iran or some other fundamentalist theocracy.
>
> Are you really that foolish? Do you really think a backlash from an
> electorate of whining, self-centered brats vindicates Mr. Clinton?!? Are you
> so naive as to think that our legal system should rest on the unstable whims
> of a misinformed public? Was the OJ Simpson trial an example of justice?
> Does his acquittal make him innocent?
That right-wing analogy of O.J. Simpson to Clinton resurfaces! Anyone
who would equate consensual sex to murder would have to be losing it.
A lot of us are outraged that a murderer went free. But as far as Monica
Lewinsky's trysts with the President go, most don't really give a shit.
>
> Like most Clintonites, I suspect you link his being "forgiven" with a
> relinquishment of your own moral responsibility.
Wow, you stated that in such a pompous and self-righteous manner. Brother
Jimmy Swaggart couldn't have said it any better!
> Thanks for dragging our country through the mud and helping make the
> presidency an R-rated topic I can't even discuss with my 9-year-old niece.
>
Be sure not to discuss Thomas Jefferson with your niece either. We
wouldn't want to sully the reputation of the Founding Fathers.
> Remember this the next time you whine about a politician lying to you:
> Bill Clinton lied to your face! Apparently, that's OK with you.
About his sex life? That would make him a fairly normal and typical human
being. Once again, most people didn't want to know about Monica Lewinsky
then and don't want to know about her now. The Republicans stupidly
ignored this message, and did so at their peril. That's why Newt is
a political dead man at the moment. And that's why the christian
coalition will be a political liability for Republicans, from this point
forward. A 'zero' rating from them will provide the margin of victory.
Pass along them voter's guides!
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>Eric, da Red wrote in message <71vhuu$mug$1...@bigger.aa.net>...
>
>>
>>I don't know much about the Shrub's record - but starting Tuesday
>>night the agglomerated televised wisdom has been asuring us that he's
>>a moderate, so for now he's the designated hitter.
>
>
>One thing everyone forgets (for now) about Shrub: he's got a "Clinton
>problem" with his private life. Lots of whoring, boozing, etc. General
>public might not care, but the religious nuts who have veto power in the
>Republican party won't stand for it.
Sure they will. They are hypocrites, like all the rest of us.
The Repubs will do a background check
>one one of these days, quite discreetly, and then just as discreetly Shrub
>will drop from public view.
>
Nah. Pussy and whiskey are on the way back. Clearly this sex police
stuff has been a bomb. Won't hurt Bush. People argue about sex and
Clinton just as an excuse to argue against Clinton. It could be S and
Ls and Clinton if it wasnt sex.
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>
>> Gail I've posted all this before. But Tate gave all these
>> reasons in his Press Conference on C-Span & even doing a Perot
>> with all his "charts".
>>
>> Even on Rush's program today a CC said she voted for the pro-life
>> Dem. I'm not turning on my own. I'm not a CC member or even
>> that religious. I'm a "fiscal Conservative," also pro-choice.
>
>Maybe you should vote Libertarian--if enough Republicans got disgusted
with
>the CC and went Libertarian, they might become the dominant
conservative
>party, while the Christian fascists who remained in the GOP faded into
>third-party obscurity. Actually, fiscal conservatism got the shaft
from
>everyone this year; Clinton and the Congress took an imaginary surplus
(based
>on looting Social Security), and passed an incredibly bloated budget
packed
>with pork from every Senator and Rep on the hill, Republican and
Democrat
>alike. My feeling is that any surplus we get should go directly
into debt
wouldn't mind
>seeing a flat tax, either--but not the Steve Forbes version, which
exempts
>all investment income (which would save Forbes himself upwards of $12
million
>a year). Mine would be a flat rate of 25% on ALL income from any
source,
>with a personal/dependent deduction based on what it actually costs to
>comfortably feed, clothe, and shelter one person for one
year--somewhere in
>excess of $10,000. Thus, a family of five with a net income of up to
$50,000
>a year would pay no taxes, and a single CEO making a million a year
would pay
>$250,000--certainly more than he would under the current labyrinthine
system
>of deductions, loopholes, and shelters. As the liberal said to the
>libertarian, "I agree: let's cut taxes--from the bottom up-- and end
>welfare--from the top down."
>
==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start
Your Own
You said that extremely well. I'm really disappointed & also disgusted
with how it's all turning out.
And now with Newt leaving...heaven knows what will happen
to the leadership. I may have to become a libertarian
after all. I never thought I would feel like that about
the GOP, but it is really spliting I'm afraid.
yasmin2
Gail Weasel
>
>
> Rand Tate is not a pundit. He ought to know who they supported
> in their voting guides.
>
> He said they supported Edwards against Faircloth or was he
> lying.
He did not say that. He said Edwards won because
he supported tax credits and ran as a church-going
family man. The CC supported Faircloth. They are
claiming credit when none is due.
What would be his reason for lying? I think alot
> of Conservatives were disenchanted with the GOP & many have
> spoken out & asked the leadership to resign which Newt did
> this evening.
>
I don't think he lied. He just put the best spin
on the outcome of the elections for his particular
interest group.
> I personally think it's going to prove to be a huge mistake.
> When one starts to take the advise of Arianna Huffington, I
> think it's all over for anymore GOP majorities in Congress.
> I think she knows next to nothing about the Conservative
> movement. There have been many ups & downs but this
> could be a big blow that will take a long time to
> recover from.
>
> But of course the "pervert" in the WH will carry
> on with business as usual with all the Dems backing
> him completely.
>
> Too bad we have people like Huffington, Bill Crystle, the
> neo-conservative calling the shots. Even Rush was in
> favor of this. But I think he is also very wrong.
>
> yasmin2
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
ly...@my-dejanews.com
entomo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36414C...@democrat.com>,
> Alex <vo...@democrat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
The CC is spinning.
In North Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
Right voted for Faircloth in the Senate race.
In South Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
Right voted for Inglis in the Senate race. %75 percent voted for Beasley in
the governor's race.
In Alabama, 70% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious Right
voted for James in the governor's race.
Since the CC claims it was making a statement to the Republican party by
voting Democrat, one would safely judge that an exit poll would reflect this.
It didn't, the Religious Right voted Republican, and LOST. It's that
simple.
Mary E Knadler
<Pine.GSO.3.95qL.98110...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>
Brad Macdonald <br...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>Ralph Reed still hasn't lost his CC foolishness. On CNN the
other night he equated Clinton's favoring public education and
opposition to school vouchers to George Wallace's famous, physical
attempt to prevent Blacks from attending the University of Alabama
back in the sixties. Reed did so after Tuesday's elections, but I
hope he lofts this notion again and again, as it will certainly
bring African-Americans out to vote for Democrats. What a moron.
Half of his candidates lost. Duh?
>
-- but you know what I mean?)
>
>>
>>
likely vote Republican, were it not for its staunch anti-abortion
stance, and the GOP's anti-environmental direction.
>
>Congrats to Geo. W. Bush on taking a pass at the last CC
convention. If there was ever a craven sight, it was Steve Forbes
there talking about how abortion is his number one issue, as if he
would care a jot about it if he weren't trying to win Republican
primaries in the Bible belt.
>
>btw, I think Jeb Bush's success in winning the Florida
gubernatorial race is the mirror image of the Clinton versus Dole.
Clinton went right, Bush went left -- both were facing old, rather
unexciting opposition candidates (Dole and McKay) who got their
party's nominations mostly because only they were deemed
next-in-line -- a failure from party loyalty. Discuss. ;)
>
>Brad
>
>
Oh, Brad I agree with you on most of your remarks but am now
more discouraged with the resignation of Gingrich & who will
take over the Leadership in the House. The same ones are calling
for the ouster of Trent Lott.
I had some idea this was going on even before the election as
I had been getting e-mails from right-wing groups to phone my
congressman & ask for the ouster of the whole leadership.
I got into several discussions & I even e-mailed Rush to say
I thought he was being very wrong in bashing Modrates just before
the election.
So I'm not really surprised that this is happening. Alot of
the media is assuming the ouster of Newt will mean a less
Conservative leadership but in reality Livingston is MORE
Conservative as is evidently Largent so I think if they are
successful in taking over it will get even harder to move the
Party to a more right of center for 2000. Last night I heard
that Dr. Dobson saying he wanted Steve Largent for Speaker!
Dr Dobson, I never even heard of this guy until recently,
we don't get much of that extreme right-wing stuff here.
I was appalled. This guy is a former football player, nice guy
I guess but hardly Speakership material yet!
I think Gingrich was trying to do that & that is why they wanted
him out. Right now I feel very discouraged. I think you guys might
end up with it all. The GOP as I knew it is fracturing before our
eyes. :-(
yasmin2
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
tyre...@writeme.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:57:28 GMT, entomo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> reasons in his Press Conference on C-Span & even doing a Perot
> >> with all his "charts".
> >>
> >> Even on Rush's program today a CC said she voted for the pro-life
> >> Dem. I'm not turning on my own. I'm not a CC member or even
> >> that religious. I'm a "fiscal Conservative," also pro-choice.
> >
> >Maybe you should vote Libertarian--if enough Republicans got disgusted with
> >the CC and went Libertarian, they might become the dominant conservative
> >party, while the Christian fascists who remained in the GOP faded into
> >third-party obscurity. Actually, fiscal conservatism got the shaft from
> >everyone this year; Clinton and the Congress took an imaginary surplus (based
> >on looting Social Security), and passed an incredibly bloated budget packed
> >with pork from every Senator and Rep on the hill, Republican and Democrat
> >alike. My feeling is that any surplus we get should go directly into debt
> >reduction, but that's not the kind of issue that wins votes.
>
> better investments?
Not many SAFER investments--if the government ties up money in banks or
stocks, and those collapse, who's going to bail them out? The interest on
the debt makes up a significant percentage of our national budget; the sooner
we reduce it, the less we pay in the long run. The low interest rate on
bonds should make it easier for the government to buy them back. Of course,
that would be assuming that we actually have a surplus, which we don't,
exactly. All the surplus and then some is in the Social Security budget.
Taking money from there to pay for pork-barrel programs, at a time when
Social Security is projected to go bankrupt in about fifteen years, strikes
me as terribly irresponsible.
> I wouldn't mind
> >seeing a flat tax, either--but not the Steve Forbes version, which exempts
> >all investment income (which would save Forbes himself upwards of $12 million
> >a year). Mine would be a flat rate of 25% on ALL income from any source,
> >with a personal/dependent deduction based on what it actually costs to
> >comfortably feed, clothe, and shelter one person for one year--somewhere in
> >excess of $10,000. Thus, a family of five with a net income of up to $50,000
> >a year would pay no taxes, and a single CEO making a million a year would pay
> >$250,000--certainly more than he would under the current labyrinthine system
> >of deductions, loopholes, and shelters. As the liberal said to the
> >libertarian, "I agree: let's cut taxes--from the bottom up-- and end
> >welfare--from the top down."
>
> Bet it would lead to deficits.
Possibly, at the percentage I named. You could make it 30% or 35%--however
much is necessary to ensure a balanced budget. The percentage isn't really
that important, as long as you eliminate most deductions and raise the
individual deduction to approximate the annual cost of living. At the
moment, 5% of the people in this country hold 95% of the wealth, and do NOT
pay 95% of the taxes; I want that to change. It might put a damper on
investment--but the majority of investment these days involves playing
monopoly with stocks and realestate, not the creation of new jobs. I
wouldn't mind a capital gains deduction as long as it applied to new issues
only, but I see no point in rewarding the very rich for playing market games
which create no profits for anyone but themselves.
> George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
>
> >Eric, da Red wrote in message <71vhuu$mug$1...@bigger.aa.net>...
> >
> >>
> >>I don't know much about the Shrub's record - but starting Tuesday
> >>night the agglomerated televised wisdom has been asuring us that he's
> >>a moderate, so for now he's the designated hitter.
> >
> >
> >One thing everyone forgets (for now) about Shrub: he's got a "Clinton
> >problem" with his private life. Lots of whoring, boozing, etc. General
> >public might not care, but the religious nuts who have veto power in the
> >Republican party won't stand for it.
>
> Sure they will. They are hypocrites, like all the rest of us.
Don't count on it; some of Shrub's opponents are squeaky clean and nasty
mean; you can count on them to run attack adds all through the primare to
mobilize the Christian fascists against him. And, as has been pointed out
elsewhere in this thread, the Christian right forms the Republicans' main
volunteer base. Assuming he really does have a serious problem of that
nature; the Newsweek story seemed think he did not--that he did drink a lot
up to twelve years ago, but that no one could find any evidence of
infidelity. They probably will NOT bother him much for being a reformed
alcoholic. As to other questions of that nature (like whether he ever smoked
marijuana), he refuses to answer, and says that no public figure who has done
that to admit to it, because it just sets a bad example for our children.
Stonewalling the nosy media for the children's sake is likely to play pretty
well with most voters, especially after all of Clinton's various
embarrassments.
> The Repubs will do a background check
> >one one of these days, quite discreetly, and then just as discreetly Shrub
> >will drop from public view.
> >
> Nah. Pussy and whiskey are on the way back. Clearly this sex police
> stuff has been a bomb. Won't hurt Bush. People argue about sex and
> Clinton just as an excuse to argue against Clinton. It could be S and
> Ls and Clinton if it wasnt sex.
Wasn't the other Bush boy, Neil, an S&L crook? I've read that George and Jeb
made some money off it too, but they apparently didn't do anything illegal.
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
> You said that extremely well. I'm really disappointed & also disgusted
> with how it's all turning out.
Thank you; there's nothing more satisfying than praise from those who disagree
with you. Incidentally, you express yourself very well, too.
> And now with Newt leaving...heaven knows what will happen
> to the leadership. I may have to become a libertarian
> after all. I never thought I would feel like that about
> the GOP, but it is really splitting I'm afraid.
>
> yasmin2
I wouldn't shed too many tears for Newt if I were you; leave that to us
Democrats. We're going to miss his chronic case of foot-in-mouth disease,
his apparently unlimited talent for alienating voters; he's helped us almost
as much as the Christian Coalition. Whoever your new Speaker is, he could
hardly help being more charismatic than Newt. I must give the man credit for
one thing, though--we was a good friend to the Smithsonian, which in my
admittedly biased opinion (I work there) is one of the most worthy
institutions of our government. (It's only quasi-governmental, actually--much
of our funding, including of course the original Smithson legacy, comes from
private donations, and our internet domain ends with .edu, not .gov.)
Anyway, it's going to be an interesting couple of years; once again, I wish
you and all moderate Republicans the best of luck in reforming your party. J.
A. Harman
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
y...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
> >> all of Clinton's supporters
> >> would want his head on a spike.
>
> business" it would be, "Why is Clintonz fooling around instead of doing the
> 'people's work??' But remember, is was Clinton and he alone that made the
> allegation that 'the people's business' needed such attention...actually he
> was in China kissing butt with the RCA...or in Africa or Russia or Ireland or
> playing Golf.
"The people's business" does include foreign policy, my isolationist friend;
violence and chaos overseas not only tends to hurt our balance of trade, but
is offensive to that moral sensibility that you republicreeps so love to
yammer about. You call us hypocrites, but you're the ones who work
yourselves into a moralistic frenzy over a blowjob while saying "not our
problem" about an act of genocide.
> Besides haven't these folks ever heard of Laissez Faire economics?
Yes, we've heard too much of Lazy Failure: it was the primary cause of the
Great Depression, and more recently of the S&L crisis and the $4 trillion
national debt. The last economic theorist who actually knew what he was
talking about, as far as I can tell, was John Maynard Keynes. The current
rosy economy-- soaring stocks, low unemployment, and low inflation--seems to
be partly the result of Allen Greenspan's careful regulation of interest
rates.
> >> The new governor of Minnesota, a former pro "wrestler", got the
> >> highest voter turnout in the country. It's voter idiocy
>
> Here Here...Gingrich goes on television and insinuates the same thing as
> you...and next day...he resigns. I'm waiting for Randy Macho Man Savage Lt.
> Gov. of Iowa!
>
> >> Does his acquittal make him innocent?
>
> No...it just gives him the opprotunity to kill again.
Clinton or O.J.? If you mean the "murder" of Vince Foster, I suggest you
consider psychological treatment for your paranoid delusions (in case you
think I only feel that way about right-wing conspiracy theorists, you should
know that I prescribe the same thing for Oliver Stoned). In O.J.'s case,
while I agree that he was guilty and should have been convicted (and would
have been, if the jury had had half a brain among the lot of them), I think
it most unlikely that he'll ever kill anyone else; the rate of recidivism for
crimes of passion is pretty low.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
loyalty. Discuss. ;)
>>
>>Brad
>>
>>
>
>Oh, Brad I agree with you on most of your remarks but am now
>more discouraged with the resignation of Gingrich & who will
>take over the Leadership in the House. The same ones are calling
>for the ouster of Trent Lott.
Discouraged? If it is any consolation, Mary, I am also very sad to see
Newt go. I think it was smart of the Republicans to fire him.
>
>I had some idea this was going on even before the election as
>I had been getting e-mails from right-wing groups to phone my
>congressman & ask for the ouster of the whole leadership.
>
>I got into several discussions & I even e-mailed Rush to say
>I thought he was being very wrong in bashing Modrates just before
>the election.
>
>So I'm not really surprised that this is happening. Alot of
>the media is assuming the ouster of Newt will mean a less
>Conservative leadership but in reality Livingston is MORE
>Conservative
Yeah. I went to his website and he seems very antiabortion, wants to
shut down many depts in DC.
> as is evidently Largent so I think if they are
>successful in taking over it will get even harder to move the
>Party to a more right of center for 2000. Last night I heard
>that Dr. Dobson saying he wanted Steve Largent for Speaker!
>Dr Dobson, I never even heard of this guy until recently,
>we don't get much of that extreme right-wing stuff here.
>
largent is the star of the revolutionaries elected in the 1994
nightmare. Lindsey Graham is another - but he is a bit too free
thinking to be in leadership. Largent is too far right for the party
as a whole, but he is a good one to give to the radicals for their
support of Livingston, who knows how to compromise when needed.
>I was appalled. This guy is a former football player, nice guy
>I guess but hardly Speakership material yet!
Reagan was an actor. Don't sell largent short. But he is TOO far out
for speaker, and too young.
>
>I think Gingrich was trying to do that & that is why they wanted
>him out. Right now I feel very discouraged. I think you guys might
>end up with it all. The GOP as I knew it is fracturing before our
>eyes. :-(
Sadly, I see them as rebuilding. I think this will help them.
But there ARE big problems - with such a narrow margin the factions
will always be trying to go after each other, threatening to hold
their breath until they get their way. Unless Livingston is awfully
strong, it could be a mess. Bob is probably the most likely guy to be
able to hold it together. But he has a really tough job.
>
> yasmin2
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
mw...@my-dejanews.com
personally feel that the people are tired of the political crap that we have
to put up with and finance. Because of the stupitity of the Repbulican witch
hunt I think that they have reaped what they have sown. Instead of taking
care of the important business of this country, they wanted to play their
little political games, well they lost, some of the people are tired of the
mess that the government is in. The government first of all are going to
serve their own secret agendas, they are going to get the wealth they want
for themselves, and then if there is anything left, they might use it for the
country, maybe. This country and other countries are in serious condition
because of the leadership of all countries. We need leaders with integrity
and dignity, who are about saving the planet and the people, the people of
this planet have been controlled by money, religion, and the powerful, so it
is the people who pay and suffer while those in power play their little
games. It will not always be so. In article
<71qaa7$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Frank DeCarlo" <fdec...@att.net>
wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote in message
news:364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu...
> >Let's see, knocked off right wing biggies like Al D'Mafia, Lauch
> >Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
> >governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
> >
> >How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
> >dems?
> >
> >It cost them over 270 million for this?
> >
> If the Republicans hadn't spent this much money, they would probably
> have lost control of the House in this election.
>
> The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
> oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
> to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
>
>
paul...@mtnhome.com
Moderates will say, if we laid off Clinton we would have picked up seats,
hardliners will argue, it was the caving on the budget and partial birth that
lost for us at the polls.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>In article <3646a835...@news.newsguy.com>,
> tyre...@writeme.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
Instead of pork, what if the gov borrowed to dredge waterways, beef up
ports, to aid the economy?
MAYBE there are good investments, is my point. If they produce a
profit beyond the cost of borrowing - it's a winner.
>
>> I wouldn't mind
>> >seeing a flat tax, either--but not the Steve Forbes version, which exempts
>> >all investment income (which would save Forbes himself upwards of $12 million
>> >a year). Mine would be a flat rate of 25% on ALL income from any source,
>> >with a personal/dependent deduction based on what it actually costs to
>> >comfortably feed, clothe, and shelter one person for one year--somewhere in
>> >excess of $10,000. Thus, a family of five with a net income of up to $50,000
>> >a year would pay no taxes, and a single CEO making a million a year would pay
>> >$250,000--certainly more than he would under the current labyrinthine system
>> >of deductions, loopholes, and shelters. As the liberal said to the
>> >libertarian, "I agree: let's cut taxes--from the bottom up-- and end
>> >welfare--from the top down."
>>
>> Bet it would lead to deficits.
>
>Possibly, at the percentage I named. You could make it 30% or 35%--however
>much is necessary to ensure a balanced budget. The percentage isn't really
>that important, as long as you eliminate most deductions and raise the
>individual deduction to approximate the annual cost of living. At the
>moment, 5% of the people in this country hold 95% of the wealth, and do NOT
>pay 95% of the taxes; I want that to change. It might put a damper on
>investment--but the majority of investment these days involves playing
>monopoly with stocks and realestate, not the creation of new jobs. I
>wouldn't mind a capital gains deduction as long as it applied to new issues
>only, but I see no point in rewarding the very rich for playing market games
>which create no profits for anyone but themselves.
I favor progressive tax but think speculation is usually good for the
economy. Efficient markets also produce jobs.
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>> Nah. Pussy and whiskey are on the way back. Clearly this sex police
>> stuff has been a bomb. Won't hurt Bush. People argue about sex and
>> Clinton just as an excuse to argue against Clinton. It could be S and
>> Ls and Clinton if it wasnt sex.
>
>Wasn't the other Bush boy, Neil, an S&L crook?
Not a criminal. On the board of directors of one of the more awful S
and Ls, and he, Neil Bush, has been ordered to never again work in the
industry. I think. Maybe he was just dumb. Hard to tell based on my
limited info.
I've read that George and Jeb
>made some money off it too, but they apparently didn't do anything illegal.
I don't recall that. I recall shrub getting a sweetheart deal for oil
drilling in the persian gulf.
Maybe Bahrain was trying to make an important friend by throwing the
money to a Bush. I don;t know. I doubt Bush would knowingly do
anything crooked. Like Clinton. Too smart. Too decent,
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
William Barwell
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@writeme.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:14:26 -0500, "atwood" <atw...@mediaone.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric, da Red wrote in message <71vhuu$mug$1...@bigger.aa.net>...
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know much about the Shrub's record - but starting Tuesday
>>>night the agglomerated televised wisdom has been asuring us that he's
>>>a moderate, so for now he's the designated hitter.
>>
>>
>>One thing everyone forgets (for now) about Shrub: he's got a "Clinton
>>problem" with his private life. Lots of whoring, boozing, etc. General
>>public might not care, but the religious nuts who have veto power in the
>>Republican party won't stand for it.
>
>Sure they will. They are hypocrites, like all the rest of us.
withing a hair's breadth of going to prison for destroying incriminating
evidence of campaig finance wrong doing and attempted obstruction of
justice.
If ex-Texas Attorney General Ronnie Earl had not been a fuckup, she'd
be an ex-con by now, well out of politics with a prison record.
This does not bother a single GOP creep I have ever met.
Especially those who claim to hate Clinton because he broke the law and
lied about it.
msi...@tefbbs.com
>Maybe Bahrain was trying to make an important friend by throwing the
>money to a Bush. I don;t know. I doubt Bush would knowingly do
>anything crooked. Like Clinton. Too smart. Too decent,
>George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
I think he would knowingly do something crooked. He would try to be
less obvious about it.
Simon
Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and may or may not reflect my opinion at this particular time or any other.
y...@netscape.net
>> "The people's business" does include foreign policy, my isolationist friend;
Yeah...just ask Saddam Hussein how isolationist the Rebs. are. Or Noriega.
>> violence and chaos overseas not only tends to hurt our balance of trade, but
>> is offensive to that moral sensibility that you republicreeps so love to
>> yammer about.
Any serious War today would mean the end of the world. Besides I like being
isolated from countries like Russia...look what thier corrupt politicians did
to that economy...imagine being intertwined with that. No thanks.
>> You call us hypocrites, but you're the ones who work
>> yourselves into a moralistic frenzy over a blowjob while saying "not our
>> problem" about an act of genocide.
Huh? No...Clintonz is a first class fraud! He is an embarassment. I and
others new this from Day one.
> Yes, we've heard too much of Lazy Failure: it was the primary cause of the
> Great Depression, and more recently of the S&L crisis and the $4 trillion
> national debt.
Reagan was not L.F...he was into artificial over-stimulation. And its that
$4 trillion dollars circulating in the economy which makes this "good economy
possible"...actually I think if we weren't in this "boom" we we would be in a
load of trouble...I think we should thank Bill Gates now instead of sticking
him on a witness bench...
>> The current
>> rosy economy-- soaring stocks, low unemployment, and low inflation--seems to
>> be partly the result of Allen Greenspan's careful regulation of interest
>> rates.
A precise argument for Laissez Faire Economics! Oy Veh! But oh yeah, those
interest rates are very critical!
Mike Jones
do you keep
fighting?"
Exactly because they don't have a leg to stand on, they must keep fighting.
An honorable man will admit defeat when he knows he is whipped.
MIke.
REALMimi1
"Mike Jones" writes:
>Exactly because they don't have a leg to stand on, they must keep fighting.
>An honorable man will admit defeat when he knows he is whipped.
We are NOT whipped, but you ARE irrelevant.
Mimi Weasel
(these ERWWS sure make me laugh!)
dontgiv...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank DeCarlo" <fdec...@att.net> wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> wrote in message
news:364097DC...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu...
> >Let's see, knocked off right wing biggies like Al D'Mafia, Lauch
> >Faircloth (what kind of name is Lauch?), took some southern
> >governorships, and a tidy 5 seat gain in the house.
> >
> >How much did republicons spend? 80 to 90 million more than
> >dems?
> >
> >It cost them over 270 million for this?
> >
> If the Republicans hadn't spent this much money, they would probably
> have lost control of the House in this election.
>
> The backlash against them is growing fast, and the harder they push to
> oust Clinton, the faster the backlash grows. No wonder Hyde wants
> to get this impeachment nonsense over with as soon as possible.
>
>
> backlash is the result of the appearance that the Republicans were only
> interested in trying to oust Clinton for strategic, politcal reasons. The
> Republicans never made the case for ousting Clinton.
> Before Clinton's video tapped testimony to the grand jury was released, I
> remember watching The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. There were two democrats and
> two republicans from the House Judiciary Committee on the show, and one of
> the democrats, (I forget his name--but he was from Mississippi) was the only
> one saying that President Clinton should be impeached, that lying under oath
> and obstructing justice, which Clinton clearly did, were grounds for
> impeachment. The republicans were trying to maintain that they had an open
> mind, that they had to look at the evidence, etc. It was very obvious that
> they were trying to appear moderate and open minded. They didn't agree with
> or support this courageous democrat who was saying what needed to be said.
> With the impending release of the video tapped testimony, it was clear that
> the republicans didn't think they needed to say anything. They gambled that
> there would be a public outcry against the president, that they wouldn't have
> to actually get their hands dirty making the case for the seriousness of these
> charges, and when there was no backlash, they were sunk. They failed to lead.
> They were governed by polls. And that's why they lost.
> Clearly, people are unhappy with the President's behavior. He is not trusted.
> By playing this strategically, and waiting for a groundswell which failed to
> emerge, the republicans failed the country. We need leaders, not pollsters.
> We need people who would rather lose an election than betray their principles.
> And when we get someone like that, they won't lose. (Look at Feingold.)
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
ly...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71vmkg$mb8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> entomo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <36414C...@democrat.com>,
> > Alex <vo...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > > > And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
> > >
> > > The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
> > > as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
>
> The CC is spinning.
>
> In North Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
> Right voted for Faircloth in the Senate race.
>
> In South Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
> Right voted for Inglis in the Senate race. %75 percent voted for Beasley in
> the governor's race.
>
> In Alabama, 70% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious Right
> voted for James in the governor's race.
>
> Since the CC claims it was making a statement to the Republican party by
> voting Democrat, one would safely judge that an exit poll would reflect this.
> It didn't, the Religious Right voted Republican, and LOST. It's that
> simple.
Not quite; I would think that the expected percentage of white voters
identifying themselves as members of the Religious Wrong would be 100% or
darn close to it; 25-30% of them voting Democratic strikes me as a
potentially significant protest vote. Which doesn't change the fact that the
CC leadership supported the Republicans in its voter guides, and is now
trying to spin the election results to make itself look more relevant than it
really is. -----J. A. Harman
entomo...@my-dejanews.com
ly...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71vmkg$mb8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> entomo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <36414C...@democrat.com>,
> > Alex <vo...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > > > And yet the GOP lost big races in both South Carolina and Alabama.
> > >
> > > The Christian Coalition is taking credit for both those races
> > > as well. The Head of the group was on C-Span today.
>
> The CC is spinning.
>
> In North Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
> Right voted for Faircloth in the Senate race.
>
> In South Carolina, 74% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious
> Right voted for Inglis in the Senate race. %75 percent voted for Beasley in
> the governor's race.
>
> In Alabama, 70% of voters who identified themselves as White Religious Right
> voted for James in the governor's race.
>
> Since the CC claims it was making a statement to the Republican party by
> voting Democrat, one would safely judge that an exit poll would reflect this.
> It didn't, the Religious Right voted Republican, and LOST. It's that
> simple.
Not quite; I would think that the expected percentage of white voters
identifying themselves as members of the Religious Wrong who voted Republican