Posted on 06/16/2007 9:58:42 AM PDT by SmithL
That little stunt cost the Republicans the majority in the House and probably the Senate too!
B.S.
You can lead!
I have not read Tom DeLay's book so I am presuming much but it occurs that the excesses of spending, the earmarks, and cronyism with K Street lobbyists bears scrutiny and we ought to investigate the dynamics between DeLay and Hastert.
Hastert was a good man but we needed a "bad" man. We got a caretaker, a plodding conservative, a man better suited to lead defense but we needed another Gingrich -but without the warts-instead, we got an amiable man.
Hi fatso. Acting the lousey ingrate gets you off?
I honestly cannot think of a single thing he was instumental in accomplishing.
Not much except being in the pockets of the Muslim Turk parastate and blocking the genocide resolution which our allies have fought for so long.
Good riddance to bad company.
In his defense, there was something far more important happening that day. But why wouldn’t the Speaker of the House have a separate, secure line for calling other officials?
Nope, but beltway dweebs like you responding to me definitely does. (Smooch)
Bullshit. Who didn’t know within a half hour of the second plane hitting? I was in school that day and most classes had either a radio or TV on.
Hastert and Delay did a good job overall, and the record of the House under them makes that of the Senate under Lott, etc. look like utter crap in comparison. Hastert’s style was to not take credit so that he didn’t overshadow the office ala Newt.
Hastert and Delay perhaps ultimately put too much of a premium on passing legislation as opposed to moving the debate through it. They held the line against Democrats, but did not do so enough against the President’s more left wing initiatives, and did not change the terms of the debate as Newt did. I also think Hastert thought too much of House privilege, comity and the like-— his defense of William Jefferson Clinton was simply sad. But that does not diminish his good work limiting the bad works of leftists on, to name just one example, Title IX.
Thank you...i am glad somebody said it. It seems like everyone around here becomes more delusional by the day about how the game of politics works. there is a reason certain things outlast the presidential admins/congresses in charge, thats because political realities sometimes determine policies, whether anyone around here likes it or not.
“longest-serving Republican House speaker in history”
What a waste.
What the hell did he accomplish?
>> political realities sometimes determine policies
Uh, huh. Right.
The “reality” that it takes lots & lots of money to get re-elected causes guys like Hastert to talk like conservatives but hop in the sack with the moneybags and foster “policies” like spending the taxpayers’ money like drunken sailors (or Democrats).
That what you’re talking about?
Hastert screwed up as Speaker. The buck stops with him. He allowed — dare I say supported? — the run amok spending and tolerance of crooked dealings that flushed the Republicans out of the Congress.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
>> He was conservative on all issues.
He WAS???!?
So you’re saying he was conservative on fiscal responsibility?
Conservative on small government?
Conservative on the ethics required of our public servants?
Hmmm...
Either you and I are talking about a different Hastert — or we’re talking about a different definition of *conservative*.
and we all know candidates campaign either right or left to win support from the base and then move center for the general election. Regardless of what the candidates promise or what platforms they run on, it means nothing when it comes to passing legislation. The Dems “promised” to leave Iraq but it still hasn’t happened because its not that easy. Candidates can say whatever they want to get elected (i.e. Dems candidates promising an exit from Iraq or Hastert runnning as a staunch conservative) but once they are elected, the political realities of many different opinions come together and they all must deal with it.
Thank you for the pedantic lecture on “what we all know”.
I realize now that I didn’t really know what my own lyin’ eyes and reasoned judgment have shown me. I’m grateful to you for setting me straight.
Now, could you please explain, based on your natural law of Inexorable Movement to the Middle, how Hastert and his band of merry men...
were FORCED to support unethical behavior?
were FORCED to spend more prodigiously than the Donks ever even dreamed they could get away with?
were FORCED to look the other way as lobbyists took over the House?
All at a time when their party had the SENATE and the PRESIDENCY, not to mention an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY in the house?
Thanks!
Got your tax cuts didn't you?
Conservative on small government?
Yep, as much and more as all republicans should be.
Conservative on the ethics required of our public servants?
Yes, to a fault. It backfired and cost Delay his seat. Keeping the inept Justice Department (Administration) out of the House Offices was the right thing to do.
Hmmm...
Either you and I are talking about a different Hastert — or we’re talking about a different definition of *conservative*.
Not true. You're talking like a hateful Democrat and apparently unaware of it. Classic definition of stupidity.
Maybe I can use some of my tax cuts to pay for Hastert’s bloated prescription drug plan. But I guess being against wasteful government spending is “talking like a hateful Democrat”, eh?
And Hastert’s shocking protection of the criminal Jefferson is the act of a man who knew much — maybe too much — about all of the ethical lapses money can buy on both sides of the aisle. But I guess wanting justice against elected officials taking bribes is “talking like a hateful Democrat”, eh?
On the other hand, you’re talking like a Madison socialist.
“Shut up”, duckln explained...
"I told him he had the wrong number."
Hey Dickie, that was your base calling. Apparently they woke up to the realization that they had been dialing the wrong number for 12 years and finally hung up the phone.
Well, he did enable his son become a lobbyist even though the latter had no experience beyond selling CDs at his record store.
Why would you be mean to a person who hadn’t yet heard the news? Wouldn’t you advise him to turn on the TV? (Especially, if you wanted his vote in the future so you wouldn’t be kicked out of office.....LOL.)
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.