Forums | MacLife

kb5zhh wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Sounds like some people have a story frame they are willing to shoehorn anything into.

We'll see.  It seems that some people are willing to let just about anything pass that would have had them crowing like roosters in heat if it had happened to the GOP.

But this did just happen to the GOP.  A significantly more contentious race for minority leader just happened.  When Newt took over in 94, his chosen lost the exact same race.  Was that a disaster for Newt?

Obviously it was a disaster for the entire GOP which was forced to disband after that event and never participated in politics again.

Farmerkev wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

We'll see.  It seems that some people are willing to let just about anything pass that would have had them crowing like roosters in heat if it had happened to the GOP.

But this did just happen to the GOP.  A significantly more contentious race for minority leader just happened.  When Newt took over in 94, his chosen lost the exact same race.  Was that a disaster for Newt?

Great example.
Newt went on to show other instances of poor judgment, got very little actually done and went down in flames.

This instance of course means nothing. Just the righties trying to make something out of nothing.
Well us and a few of the worlds media outlets but what do they know.

Perhaps Newt's issues extended a bit beyond backing one person who didn't win a party position race.  IIRC it was the budget shutdown that really showed him to be not a good leader.  But there's really not a connection between that and pushing a different person for a party position.

matt wrote:

And who the hell cares? Not the general public, most likely.

Speaks volumes about how effective they may be.

StaticAge wrote:

WHAT perceptions? Why was it incumbent upon her to side with the majority of her party? Is that what "leadership" is all about now? She offered a gesture to someone who she knew would lose anyway. And secondly, the implication being offered by this line of reasoning seems to be that the only way to show strength is if there is total solidarity. So, if thats the case, then there shouldnt have even been a campaign or election at all- Steny Hoyer should have been the only candidate, no contest because to run against him would break the democratic party line. So either the election is a facade or your conception of the election is mistaken, and I think its the latter.

The perceptions of the public.  In addition to the war, the people were tired of corruption, something that Murtha was tainted with.  My perception of Murtha is that he is not clean enough to be the Majority leader.  I doubt I'm alone.  Her show of leadership should have been telling her friend and ally that for the good of the people, you need to step aside.  If he didn't and ran, oh well.  Frankly, she should have never even publicly gotten into the election.  This has nothing to do with going with the crowd or only having one person running.  I don't want the Dems to be in lockstep. I want them to learn the lesson of the elections and do what is right.

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

MEMO, Nov. 7, 2006
To: Representative Pelosi (D-CA)
From: U.S. Voters

MADAME SPEAKER:

TURN THIS FUNDING OFF! (Iraq War, that is...)

Thank You In Advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Signed,
A. Concerned Citizen
---------
If she can do that, anything else ever done will just be gravy. She can tell her grandkids, "Mission Accomplished".

You really do want the republicans back in power, don't you.

Look, basically, the whole thing was known well in advance how it was going to happen. I heard several discussions about Pelosi's choice and why it was going to happen on NPR since the big elections. It was no big deal at all, no one was bothered by it.

But now, all of a sudden, everyone is. Everyone is acting as though, first, that its shocking, second, that it is telling us something. Well, no one was saying that before and the way the election happened was exactly the way everyone thought it would. If it really was a "problem," why now instead of when it could have been addressed before? Reason: it really is no big deal. people are taking a small news item and trying to create a controversy to either make the news sem more dramatic or to portray the new party as incompetent. Personally, either way, I think its just ignorant.

So, really, whatever.

Last edited by StaticAge (2006-11-18 7:58 am)

Yep, very telling indeed.
The next two years are gonna be fun.

jeremiah256 wrote:

Except Pelosi backed Murtha when she knows that he has some skeletons in his past: Abscam video.

Turning down a bribe is a skeleton?    Only in Washington!

resedit wrote:

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

MEMO, Nov. 7, 2006
To: Representative Pelosi (D-CA)
From: U.S. Voters

MADAME SPEAKER:

TURN THIS FUNDING OFF! (Iraq War, that is...)

Thank You In Advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Signed,
A. Concerned Citizen
---------
If she can do that, anything else ever done will just be gravy. She can tell her grandkids, "Mission Accomplished".

You really do want the republicans back in power, don't you.

"WASHINGTON -- Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped to its lowest level , increasing the pressure on the commander in chief to find a way out after nearly four years of war.

Of those surveyed in the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll, 31 percent approved of his handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans across the board and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33 percent, in both June and August.

Erosion of support for Bush's Iraq policy was most pronounced among conservatives and Republican men -- critical supporters who propelled Bush to the White House and a second term in 2004. A month ago, approval of the president on the issue certain to define his presidency was 36 percent.

"I'm completely frustrated," Representative Robin Hayes, Republican of North Carolina, said this week during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Hayes's district includes part of Fort Bragg. He said he supports the US effort, but favors pushing Iraqi troops to take more responsibility for the fighting.

Bush's low numbers underscore the high expectations for the report by the Iraq Study Group headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and one time Representative Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. The demand for an exit strategy is being made as the number of US dead from the conflict exceeds 2,850.

The violence in Iraq, much of it among religious sects, continues unabated. Dozens of employees at Iraq's Higher Education Ministry were kidnapped this week, and some were reportedly tortured before they were released .

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 57,000 US troops, including five combat brigades, have been told to deploy to Iraq early next year -- a move that will maintain current force levels there as other troops leave."...
------
Guess I'm not alone, then.

jeremiah256 wrote:

RatFink wrote:

jeremiah256 wrote:

Except Pelosi backed Murtha when she knows that he has some skeletons in his past: Abscam video.

Turning down a bribe is a skeleton?    Only in Washington!

He conditionally turned it down: Murhta - "I'm not interested...at this point. If we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."

- He says numerous time that he will help the guy before the money even comes up.
- He says that he doubts the guy would even need his help.
- The guy pulls $50k out of a desk after spending 15 minutes talking to him about investing in a business or banks in his district.  To me he seemed kinda confused as to if the money was a bribe or part of the investment he was talking about for the other 15mins.

Regardless an ambiguous statement is hardly proof of corruption particularity when what we do know is the guy didn't accept the money.  The rest is pure speculation.

kb5zhh wrote:

[I'd be more worried about murtha's pork addiction.

I think the Speaker (to be) got him to quit. I also think there'll be oppo 'research' that will reveal any slips.

Also, he knows any blemish hurts credibility on Iraq. I for one want his name attached whenever the word 'Iraq' comes out of any Dem mouth. That would especially apply to any bills/amendments CUTTING OFF FUNDS.

Damn.

I didn't know Gonzo was a registered user @ MacAddict.

Can the mods ban him?

Purty please?

(...or maybe the NSA hijacked jerwin's kbd.)

Last edited by Beagle/Bro. (2006-11-19 8:02 am)