Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, left, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, in Baghdad.
Former congressman David Bonior
"I think the president would mislead the American people." ~~ Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington
Posted on 09/30/2002 6:25:03 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
Former congressman David Bonior
"I think the president would mislead the American people." ~~ Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington
McDermott said these words while standing on Iraqi soil.
Contact these worthless scum and let them know what the majority of Americans think of their trip to Iraq.
McDermott's website
Thompson's website
Bonior
59 N. Walnut, Suite 305, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043-5677
(586) 469-3232 (not knowing if the email addy still works for Bonior, I called this number.
They still answer, "Congressman Bonior's office", I left a message.)
In case you're wondering where you've heard the name McDermott before, remember back to 1996.
Mr. McDermott on his way to Christmas shopping for his grandchildren, he and his wife just happened to intercept a phone conversation between Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich and others and then leaked the tape to the New York Times and other media.
It most definitely was a Freep. The participants may not have known it, but it most surely was. And a fantastic one at that.
Giving away fake airline tickets!!! What a hoot!!
Why do they think a whiny display would help them? Because they are spoiled children with no concept of how real people make it in the world. Whining has gotten them their way in the past, and they think it will now too.
I always liked Walter.
It's all about keeping the majority. Oh and a chance to boo hoo that those mean, nasty republicans don't want to talk about the real issues. They're not concerned about you and your state, they're only concerned about those silly ethical things.
From what I've gleaned, the Torch is quite self serving so when the party came to him and said don't run, he told them to take a hike.
Now that it's clear he's toast, it's time to break out their slimy tatics.
Terry McAwful probably has bigger, badder friends than the Torch.
This is too sick for words.
That's what we'd like to know!
I think the most disgusting part of O'Reilly's interview with that scum attorney was when he claimed that they didn't notify the authorities but instead referred the mother to an OB/GYN was because of privacy. Sick perverted freaks!!
October 1, 2002 -- IN the end, Bob Torricelli's problem was one of hubris and arrogance. Which is why it was so ironic to hear him late yesterday blubbering on about his devotion to the people of New Jersey.
If he really cared so much for those who repeatedly sent him back to office, he might have considered leveling with them.
Instead, he stonewalled. He lied. He changed his story.
Torricelli apparently spent the last few years just lining his pockets with everything imaginable: expensive clocks, watches, furniture and clothing - not to mention cold cash.
In return, he provided political favors to benefactor David Chang, who by all accounts is as sleazy a character as the senator on whom he bestowed his largesse.
He might even have gotten away with that: The Justice Department, after a lengthy investigation, refused to bring charges against Torricelli - even though it concluded that Chang's allegations were credible.
But Torricelli (who claimed he'd been "publicly raped" by the investigation) refused - until it was far too late - to answer detailed questions about his finances. And he used every legal challenge in the book to keep the truth sealed until after the election.
Which is why, in the end, the only argument he could make on behalf of his re-election was that it was necessary in order to keep the Senate in Democratic hands. (Or, as one Democratic lobbyist put it some weeks back to the Trenton Times: "He may be a sleaze, but he's our sleaze.")
Consider: Torricelli spent months insisting angrily that he'd accepted no gifts from Chang, that "I have never, ever done anything to betray the trust of the people of New Jersey."
Indeed, when the feds declined to prosecute him, Torricelli declared himself "completely vindicated."
True, when the Senate Ethics Committee publicly admonished him, Torricelli said he accepted the panel's findings that he'd violated Senate rules by accepting gifts. But even then, he still insisted he'd never accepted any gifts.
Perhaps the final blow was the court-ordered release of a prosecution memo detailing Chang's allegations and describing them as "credible."
Even then, Torricelli tried to turn it around: He declared that, because the memo raised questions about Chang's behavior, it was proof positive that the allegations against him were completely unfounded.
But that just begged the question: If the memo worked so strongly in his favor, why did he unleash a legal barrage to keep it sealed?
By the same token, if - as Torricelli maintained - the Senate Ethics Committee accepted his explanations of Chang's gifts, why did he stubbornly refuse to make his closed-door testimony public?
In the end, Torricelli simply had too big of a credibility gap.
Which is why the most devastating GOP commercial used the senator's own words, from his first debate with opponent Doug Forrester: "The question is, who do you believe?" Torricelli asked - as the audience broke out in unrestrained laughter.
And that was the problem with his emotional plea yesterday in which he asked, "When did we become such an unforgiving people?"
"I remember an America," said Torricelli, "when a person asked for forgiveness, it was given."
But Bob Torricelli never asked the people of New Jersey for forgiveness - until it was much too late. So he ends up paying the ultimate political price for his self-obsessed haughtiness.
Three years ago, Torricelli published a book that contained what he called the most "extraordinary speeches" of the 20th century.
In it, he included Bill Clinton's semi-apology to the nation about Monicagate - as well as the more forthcoming draft that Clinton refused to deliver and which, many believe, might have forestalled his eventual impeachment.
In an interview, Torricelli said he included both "because it allows people to ask the question how history might have been different if he had chosen to apologize in a different way."
Today, much the same question can be asked about Bob Torricelli. Maybe he should have read his own book more closely.
[snip]
The ethical questions do not begin and end with Torricelli. In Iowa, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin should be a shoo-in for reelection. But he may not be any longer, because someone close to him got caught leaking information from within the camp of his GOP rival Greg Ganske.
Harkin denied knowing anything about it, but after his campaign manager's resignation, the senator was forced to apologize. Ganske went after Harkin aggressively in a debate this weekend.
What matters here is not whether Ganske can actually defeat Harkin in Iowa - he probably can't - but rather that in two different regions of the country at the same time, Democrats are looking sleazy. [snip]
It had been DICTATED BY HER ON THE PHONE as she was rehearsing her performance at the recent gala to raise funds for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Unfortunately, it was taken down and interpolated by a new employee who sent out a first draft before it had been reviewed or checked for spelling.
Ahhh yes, blame the little people. What escapes Ms. Babs is grown ups take the responsibility for their pee-ons mistakes.
What do you think about the three House members who went to Baghdad and decried the administration for providing little evidence of a threatening Iraqi arms buildup?
• They're right and Bush should slow the march to war. 19%
• They're wrong and Bush shouldn't listen to the critics. 8%
• They're Saddam's dupes and should stay in Baghdad. 73%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.