Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Larry Craig The Face Of The US Senate? (Dems Inouye, Cantwell, Frank, Robb, Etc Also Discussed
Human Events ^ | 8/29/07 | Ben Shapiro

Posted on 08/29/2007 4:33:58 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

On Monday, August 27, news services broke the story that Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, pleaded guilty in early August to lewd conduct in an airport restroom...

Craig is hardly the only member of the Senate with a propensity for dropping his pants at inopportune moments...

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, has allegedly sexually harrased or abused at least 10 women. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., reportedly engaged in a sexual affair with an engagd lobbyist, Ron Dotzauer,then gave him a personal loan to help him with his subsequent divorce and threw cash his way...

Gerry Studds (re-elected six times after having sex with a male congressional page), Barney Frank (re-elected eight times after his gay lover ran a male escort ring out of his apartment), Mel Reynolds (re-elected despite facing an indictment for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse of a 16-year-old campaign worker), Sen. Charles Robb (re-elected despite credible sex scandal allegations), and Gus Savage (re-elected despite fondling a Peace Corps volunteer).

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii; US: Nevada; US: New York; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 110th; 2008; barneyfrank; cantwell; charlesrobb; chuckrobb; congress; corruptdems; corruption; danielinouye; democrats; elections; frank; gerrystudds; govwatch; gussavage; harryreid; hillary; homosexualagenda; inouye; larrycraig; mariacantwell; melreynolds; promiscuity; reid; reynolds; robb; scandal; senate; studds; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: servantboy777
Bad behavior has always been there...so what?

Who said that?

I say vote them out.

If MA doesn't vote out Kennedy, that just shows how stupid MA voters are...in fact, it's my view that the ones who vote Kerry-Kennedy are the most stupid in the nation.

However, it doesn't mean all voters are as stupid.

81 posted on 08/30/2007 11:18:32 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[I say vote them out.]

What’s the average cost of a successful congressional campaign?

82 posted on 08/30/2007 11:22:26 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: VxH
What’s the average cost of a successful congressional campaign?

I have no idea. It goes up every year along with the rest of the economy.

83 posted on 08/30/2007 11:32:08 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Are you saying you don’t for Republicans?


84 posted on 08/30/2007 11:56:09 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I do.


85 posted on 08/30/2007 12:00:32 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: what's up

[I have no idea.]

That's pretty clear.

"Table 4 lists average expenditure levels of winning House and Senate candidates, in current and constant 1996 dollars. Data for winning candidates only may provide the best gauge of the level of funding needed for congressional races, i.e., what it costs to win a House or Senate seat. On the House side, the average winner spent $680,000 in 1996, a 682% rise from the $87,000 in 1976, a higher rate of increase than among all candidates (in Table 3). Average spending for Senate winners rose from $609,000 to $3.8 million during this period,"

3.8 Million dollars in 1996, 11 years ago.

Elections are a pay to play poker game and the cost of running a campaign and sitting at the table are pretty much the same regardless of whether there's an R, D, or any other letter of the alphabet following the name of the candidate/player.

I'm still hoping that the internet and sites like FR will be able to cut a few of the strings attached to the chairs at the table.

TRUTH has no strings attached except the honor of those who face it.

Veritas x Honor.


86 posted on 08/30/2007 12:29:31 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: VxH
3.8 Million dollars in 1996, 11 years ago.

'96?

So it's clear you don't know the cost of campaigns these days either, LOL.

87 posted on 08/30/2007 12:38:16 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Read "The Franklin Cover-up" by John DeCamp.

Carolyn

88 posted on 08/30/2007 12:44:22 PM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Read "The Franklin Cover-up" by John DeCamp.

Carolyn

89 posted on 08/30/2007 12:45:39 PM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Craig has appeared innumerable times over the years defending conservative positions.

And he was on the board of the NRA...which, plus he is a Senator from my state, is why this entire affair infuriates me. Craig has never been a very influential Senator, but has most always been reliably conservative; the noteable exception being his "stance" on the screwed-up immigration reform bill. I now wonder if he was being blackmailed into supporting it?

90 posted on 08/30/2007 12:47:10 PM PDT by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: what's up

[’96? ]

Yes, 1996.
The figures from 1996 serve to illustrate my point just fine and I’m too lazy to dig up more recent figures.

3.8 million dollars is a lot of money, even today.

Where do you suppose that all that money comes from?


91 posted on 08/30/2007 1:12:59 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Cuttnhorse

[but has most always been reliably conservative]

Is that because he holds conservative beliefs or because he was being blackmailed?  I think this is a legitimate question in light of the present and past circumstances he's been in.

Exposure to extortion is one of the historical reasons for not allowing homosexuals into the military.


92 posted on 08/30/2007 1:31:10 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: VxH
Where do you suppose that all that money comes from?

Duh...contributors.

Never fails to amaze me that people actually don't understand that money is spent in campaigns...big money.

And I hope a lot MORE money is spent to keep Her Hitlery out of office.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out.

93 posted on 08/30/2007 2:12:52 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[money is spent in campaigns...big money.]

And are there strings attached to that money?

[I hope a lot MORE money is spent to keep Her Hitlery out of office.]

Centrist parasites like Arnall distribute their “donations” to both sides of the aisle. They attach themselves to whichever side has power. That’s a historically observable fact and you’re naive if you think you can just “vote them out” of power.

94 posted on 08/30/2007 2:57:02 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: VxH
That’s a historically observable fact and you’re naive if you think you can just “vote them out” of power

Duh again.

People spend money on campaigns. Politics 101.

I though we already established that you can't currently vote for or against Ambassadors.

95 posted on 08/30/2007 3:06:10 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[I though we already established ]

All you’ve established is that you’re disingenuous,

[People spend money on campaigns. Politics 101.]

People buy and sell influence. Reality 101.

Roland Arnall paid for GW’s inaugural ball -> Roland Arnall gets, among other things, appointed ambassador. QUID-PRO-QUO.

Yes, Strings are attached.

96 posted on 08/30/2007 3:19:13 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out.]
 
 
Rocket Scientists are overrated - as demonstrated by JPL founder Jack Parsons, who  blew himself up.

Who wants Clams?

97 posted on 08/30/2007 3:42:24 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: VxH
All you’ve established is that you’re disingenuous

Why...because I have to keep telling you ambassadors aren't elected?

Money buys stuff. Duh again. However, voters can vote out creeps. It's done all the time. If they don't, it's the people who are at fault.

Gov't by the people...for the people.

If they want global warming issues, they'll contribute to the global warming lobby. If they want lower taxes issues, they'll contribute to that lobby etc.

The President appoints people. It's no secret. He's appoint some moderates or those who contribute to both parties. I imagine John Adams appointed some middle-of-the-roaders as well. So did Lincoln.

98 posted on 08/30/2007 3:59:02 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[ambassadors aren’t elected?]

Never said they were. You can try to float that straw filled red herring all you want. It’s stinky, DOA, and sinking.

[Money buys stuff]

Yep, stuff like ambassadorships and political influence.

I thought the whole point of VOTING was that political influence was ultimately supposed to be in the hands of the voting public.

99 posted on 08/30/2007 4:41:58 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: what's up
[If they want]

Define THEY.

The "people" Lincoln referred to were not the handful of oligarchs who now exercise an inordinate amount of influence among “our elected” officials.

I retain my original position - your assertion that we can just “vote them out” is a illusionary fantasy.

Who you call Moderates I see as political, carpetbagging, whore-mongers.

We’re just going to have to disagree on this.

100 posted on 08/30/2007 5:01:55 PM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson