Two Senate Candidates Walk Out Of GOP Dinner

WRAL.com ^ | March 26, 2002 | AP (No byline)

[marajade]

I remember it differently... McCain almost beat Bush early on...

[marajade]

What does that have to do with anything? TX has a US senator, Gramm who was a Democrat congressman who quit the Dem party ran for congress as a rep and then ran and won a seat as a senator as a rep.

[marajade]

We need every rep senator we can get.

[Theodore R.]

I was asking about Bob Dole, for I am still unsure why he wanted to run for President. When he got the nomination, he just sat on his hands. He took numerous breaks during the campaign and then tried to campaign 72 hours straight at the end. He also seemed unsure of how to proceed, and this from a man with 40 years of political experience.

[cva66snipe]

We need every rep senator we can get.

No we need to elect QUALITY NOT QUANITY Senators. The Quality CONSERVATIVE STATESEN WILL BE BETTER THAN ANY RINO MAJORITY. It work for years like that. What did a majority GOP give us? A sellout & welcoming in of RINO's no thanks! I'll take 2 principled conservatives anyday over 5 RINO's. Know what? Those 2 will hold more influence and fight harder for what is right than the RINO 5 on any subject. The sooner voters realize this the sooner we get back on track.

[marajade]

What good does that do if the Dems still have control of the Senate to control the agenda?

[LoisHunt]

I don't live in TN but the revelations about Lamar!'s business dealings that came out in the '96 primaries (and only because Steve Forbes forced them out) put Lamar below the Clintons in terms of integrity. Making $1 million off a $1 investment THAT WAS SET UP FOR HIM. Having the state hold conferences at a hotel he owned. It was all very stinky.

The part that galled me was the big media knew about it and wasn't going to put it in the information the voters got about Alexander until Forbes made it an issue.

[Theodore R.]

I never read anything about Lamar! being corrupt. And I don't think most of the "moderates" in TN know anything about this either. I just can't imagine TN saying no to their Lamar! -- at least not in the GOP primary. All he has to do is play "Alexander's Rag-Time Band" on his piano, and the voters will cheer. In the general election, I can see Lamar! possibly being repudiated, when the Democrats get their say too.

[LoisHunt]

1996 was a frustrating election. That election was winnable. Any of the other Republican primary candidates would have done better than Dole, including "Grizz" - that guy Murray something who made money in the tire business.

Dole got tripped up on his "where's the outrage" line because he was trying to allude to the sex scandals surrounding Clinton but he had his own sex scandals. Dole was a philanderer throughout his first marriage, it turned out. There was a woman who told reporters he'd paid for her to have an abortion in the 70's at the same time he won a precarious Senate reelection by hammering the abortion issue.

In '96, just at the end of the summer, Dole decided to take a week off and go to Florida where he was unavailable to reporters. He did it because Newsweek was about to confront him with some of his own sex scandals. Then, the media decided he was such a sure loser that they took pity on him and left him alone about all his ex-girlfriends.

[LoisHunt]

In '96, Lamar came out of the Iowa caucus looking like the electable alternative to Dole and if the GOP would get behind him, he could win the New Hampshire primary, force Dole out of the race, and marginalize Buchanan. Forbes jumped on him with all his business dealings; if you look into them, he's a creature of the political culture that sets up sweetheart deals to funnel money to politicians who don't have independent wealth. Far smellier than the Whitewater stuff. It would have been interesting to have the general election between Alexander and Clinton and see the two sides hash out "integrity" as an issue. Still, Alexander would have done better than Bob Dole.

[Theodore R.]

Thank you, LoisHunt, for giving me the "low-down" on Dole. I had no idea why he held back his ammo in 1996. So now we know that this broken-down politician was being blackmailed! It was a pitiful shame that he was our nominee. It was also pathetic that Jack French Kemp was our V.P. candidate -- he couldn't seem to stop cheering for Al Bore!!! in that so-called "debate." Sometimes just thinking of the Ford-Dole and Dole-Kemp tickets makes my blood boil! What pathetic excuses for candidates we get sacked with! And Elizabeth Dole -- I'm sorry but this woman does nothing for me. I am so glad that I don't live in NC. I would hate so much to "have to" vote for her in November. I am also glad that I don't live in OK (a wonderful state otherwise) because I would have much difficulty voting for the Castro-loving Steve Largent. And it would be hard to live in TN too and "have to" vote for that silly Lamar! Pretty soon at this rate, I am going to run out of states!!!!

[LoisHunt]

Theodore, that was a good post! The Republican party does some nutty things - which is why I discount the whole "liberal media bias" shtik. The media could easily be a lot tougher with Republicans; Dole and Gingrich are as bad as Clinton on that "womanizing" issue but the media let them off. Gingrich is a "Fox News Channel" special contributor but he's never been asked about that affair he was having with the staffer while he was leading the impeachment. Never been asked.

I know what you mean about Jack Kemp. To the extent he said anything coherent in that debate, I didn't agree with him.

I think MOST Republicans don't stand for much but they posture as though they do. Establishment type-Republicans like Lamar! get treated well by the media and anti-Establishment type-Republicans like, say, Tom Delay get treated rougher. But whether either one has any deep principles he wouldn't compromise or outright ignore if it was in his interest - I'm skeptical. Like the poster above says, we have to choose the "lesser of two weevils" or maybe even the lesser of two weasels.

[cva66snipe]

What good does that do if the Dems still have control of the Senate to control the agenda?

Can you tell me when the GOP used it to their advantage? What exactally is your point? Much of the DEM's leglislation was stopped PRIOR to the so called wonderfull GOP majority. When they won the majority they stopped fighting and started worring about holding power. That in spite of popular thought is not their job. I say let's have term limits to stop career politicans.

Do you think the GOP did a good job with the majority in the senate they held? I don't. Why? Because as it was shown they were unprincipled and undisciplined to matters of the Constitution. I honestly do not care which party holds a so called majority. And Yes I do mean so called. The GOP could not even agree to convict a felon in office. I see through that hollow majority and the we have too win no matter what we loose nonsense disgust me no end. I instead desire PRINCIPLED CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES. Neither the GOP nor the DEM's have exclusive rights to that title.

[marajade]

Give me a break Jeffords switched right away they didn't have time to do anything...

[cva66snipe]

Give me a break Jeffords switched right away they didn't have time to do anything...

You just made my point for me. We do not need anymore RINO's. No it is not a good idea to elect RINO's to obtain a majority. A principled minority will do far greater good and not give away the farm. The DEM's had no trouble pushing through their agenda with a GOP majority. Now what makes you think electing RINO's is gonna change that? The GOP houses fought much harder for it's platform up to 1994 than it has since it got in power. That is a sad but true fact. The DEMS have ran the GOP majority and Lott was all to eager to give it away rather than show one once of leadership. Even with Lott's disgracefull preformance he is still the senate GOP hero. See a problem in leadership? I sure do. I hope Trent Lott looses his office so he can not be a GOP leader.