So, let me get this straight. The Democrats want to run a man who is incapacitated for the US Senate, and the Republicans are being condemned for daring to run anybody against him...
This is straight out of the Twighlight Zone!
If the Donks run Johnson, the Republicans will have to approach the issue with tact, but I think that the argument that a Senator should be able to perform his functions should resonate with the voters.
1 posted on
08/10/2007 6:10:18 AM PDT by
gridlock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: gridlock
So I guess he’s deeply saddened?
2 posted on
08/10/2007 6:12:07 AM PDT by
neodad
(USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
To: gridlock
Seriously, both sides of the aisle put “red-meat” into fund raising letters. So F’in what? Tiny Tom can say what we wants when shaking the money tree. 9 out of 10 of these letters go straight into the circular file anyway, maybe more.
To: gridlock
If you are a lion, you chase the slowest wildebeast.
5 posted on
08/10/2007 6:14:08 AM PDT by
bert
(K.E. N.P. +12 . Happiness is a down sleeping bag)
To: gridlock
Tims focus should be on his recovery to serve the people of South Dakota, not fending off classless political attacks from national Republicans, If Senator Johnson is so ill that he won't even be able to make a run next year, maybe the best service he could make is to retire to focus on his recovery and allow another person to take his place in the Senate.
Oh, wait, the governor would replace him with a Republican, and we know that wouldn't be of service to Reid and the rest of the donks.
7 posted on
08/10/2007 6:15:35 AM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
To: gridlock
Yes, every Republican’s health and age are to be questioned, yet the same not done against a democrat, who is in obvious dire straight in regards to his health.
To: gridlock
So, let me get this straight. The Democrats want to run a man who is incapacitated for the US Senate... Why not? All of the rest of them are. If you took all of the politicians, Republican and Democrat, and laid them end-to-end, they would still never reach a conclusion.
10 posted on
08/10/2007 6:22:13 AM PDT by
econjack
To: gridlock
So, let me get this straight. The Democrats want to run a man who is incapacitated for the US Senate, and the Republicans are being condemned for daring to run anybody against him...
Why not, they do it ever six years.
11 posted on
08/10/2007 6:25:31 AM PDT by
Nomorjer Kinov
(If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
To: gridlock
Tims focus should be on his recovery to serve the people of South Dakota
If the guy can't do the job the taxpayers are paying him to do, he needs to step aside. I hope he gets better...but in the meantime there is work to do.
12 posted on
08/10/2007 6:25:59 AM PDT by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: gridlock
So running someone from the other party for the Senate seat is mean because it won’t allow Johnson to focus on his recovery. LOLOL
Perhaps relinquishing his Senate duties would be a more direct way to permit him to focus on that recovery.
13 posted on
08/10/2007 6:26:37 AM PDT by
Bahbah
To: gridlock
If the dead can vote, the incapacitated can run the government.
What it illustrates is that you don’t actually have to do anything to be a Senator. Just sit around and collect your paycheck while everyone worships you.
To: gridlock
This is what happened to the last South Dakota Senator to suffer a stroke while in office:
On 23 November 1969 he suffered a severe stroke and was subsequently unable to attend sessions of Congress, although he received extensive speech and physical therapy. His wife, Mary, led his staff in Mundt's place and refused calls for the crippled Senator to resign. Mundt was stripped of his committee assignments by the Senate Republican Conference in 1972, but he remained in office through the end of his term on January 3, 1973. He did not seek reelection in 1972.
Mundt was a good guy too. Despite the fact that his wife did a credible job of managing his office and making sure constituent services got done, they did not even think about running him for re-election.
15 posted on
08/10/2007 6:32:35 AM PDT by
Vigilanteman
(Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
To: gridlock
Johnson has been totally absent from the South Dakota scene since his surgery and as a result many of us wonder if he has some diminished mental capacity. Johnson's medical condition however is as closely guarded as Castro's and we have only Hugo Chavez and Tom Daschle's assurances that all is well.
If Johnson, as Daschle assures us, is totally fit to go back to the Senate in September, why doesn't he give at least a radio interview to the South Dakota media?
16 posted on
08/10/2007 6:33:15 AM PDT by
The Great RJ
("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: gridlock
So, let me get this straight. The Democrats want to run a man who is incapacitated for the US Senate, and the Republicans are being condemned for daring to run anybody against him...
This is straight out of the Twighlight Zone!
Yes, a place tiny tommy daschle inhabits to this day...(chuckle)
17 posted on
08/10/2007 6:33:52 AM PDT by
Badeye
(You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
To: gridlock
Six years ago Johnson cheated John Thune out of his victory. Thune had a 900 vote win until 1500 votes were “found” on an Indian reservation. The Indian woman who “found” these votes eventually went to prison for voter fraud and Johnson went to Washington. tiny tommie is a hack that should not be listened to. The more he objects, the more people will hear about Johnson’s real condition.
18 posted on
08/10/2007 6:39:05 AM PDT by
jmaroneps37
(The Islamists plan to kill us.The Democrats and the ratmedia are helping them. Ft Dix proves it!)
To: gridlock
Whaaaaaa!
Doen’t bother us with governance and performance!
Can’t you see we’re way too busy being victims and accusers?
To: gridlock
Calling national Republicans sad and desperate, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) decried their pledge to begin pursuing an aggressive campaign against his ill former South Dakota Senate colleague, Sen. Tim Johnson (D). I am sorry but Senator Johnson's health is no reason why the GOP shouldn't aggressively campaign against him. And his health is just as legitimate an issue as his voting record is.
23 posted on
08/10/2007 6:42:42 AM PDT by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: gridlock
Why should Johnson be any different?
There are at least 50 other dem’s in the Senate who are incapacitated, to one degree or another.
- Inability to reason,
- Inability to see,
- Inability to articulate,
- Inability to hear,...
24 posted on
08/10/2007 6:43:44 AM PDT by
G Larry
(Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
To: gridlock
25 posted on
08/10/2007 6:43:57 AM PDT by
Arrowhead1952
(The measure of a country is not how many people are wanting to come in, but how many want to leave.)
To: gridlock
Geez, Tom, I don’t think “Tim’s focus” is on much of anything.
27 posted on
08/10/2007 6:45:23 AM PDT by
Let's Roll
(As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
To: gridlock
Based on the dubious nature of Johnson's 500+ vote victory in his last campaign, the seat was going to be highly targeted to begin with.
I like Johnson and hope that he recovers as fully as possible. I do not, however, believe that he should become part of a protected class whose ailment or condition insulates him from the reality that this seat is up in 2008.
The GOP has tried to handle it tactfully and largely been quiet about his absence. However, they need to plan for next year. The dems have been planning for it- they have held fundraisers on his behalf and acknowledged that these funds will be transferred to another candidate (Pricess Herseth-whatever)in the event that he does not run.
31 posted on
08/10/2007 7:22:04 AM PDT by
philled
(The Democrat's 'vision' for Iraq looks a lot like Pol Pot wearing a turban...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson