-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2006/09/29/the-nastiness-continues/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
Aren't Republicans the ones who LOST BIN LADEN?
Aren't Republicans the ones who CAN'T DECIDE on immigration reform?
Does the NRCC really think voters are that stupid?
(don't bother answering)
We'll be seeing more of this, all across the country. It's beyond pathetic and I hope patriotic Americans reject it for the BS that it is, starting in the 8th.
Just a thought.
Oh, NW, it was Democrats and Republicans who failed to get Bin Laden. Let's not rewrite history, they both failed.
I am actually surprised the NRCC put out this piece. The US Chamber of Commerce endorses Bean, and I thought they purchased the NRCC years ago! Too liberal for this state, not a chance!
To wit: Immigration IS a national security issue. I find it appalling that so many Democrats (and even a few “moderate†Republicans) can be so cavalier about how porous our southern border is. The other two photos are an effective and valuable contrast: what if it was the people on the right hoping over the fence like those on left. Why would anyone in their right mind oppose using the National Guard to make sure that doesn’t happen?
The second bullet point on the back is important too. Illegal Immigration is a crime, regardless of how sympathetic, merciful and accommodating liberals think we should be to those who commit it. They are criminals who belong in the Criminal Information Database.
Perhaps now that the cathartic, righteous indignation over UBL’s photo has been excised, someone can offer me an actual defense of the positions that have rightfully been attributed to Bean on this mailer.
Nw burbs – You are right, Republicans control the House and Senate. You’ll notice that these mailers don’t attack Bean as a “Democrat,†but rather as a “liberal.†Indeed, the NRCC is controlled by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, an isn’t very happy with their more “moderate†party members either. But if they can knock off Bean and pick up another conservative seat, they could override even the members of their own party who are blocking their favored solutions to these problems.
Anyone who things Bean is too liberal obviously hasn't looked at her voting record.
My personal favorite mailer was the one with the skull x-ray.
Thanks for doing the research and putting the lie to the Republicans mailer. So now we know they're lying about both Bean and Duckworth. Who's next? Seals? I wouldn't doubt it.
--
Kodak, Bill Clinton was not president during or after 9/11/01.
He did fail to kill or capture bin Laden before he left office, but he put the full resources that the Republican Congress made available to him into the effort.
He also listened to Richard Clarke's warnings, as did Bush 1 and Reagan before him.
So, no, let's not rewrite history Kodak. Let's be honest about it.
It was Bush 2 who received the Presidential Briefing Memo that said al Quaeda was determined to attack, but he ignored it and went golfing or fishing or whatever it is he does at his ranch.
It was Condi Rice who was in charge of counterterrorism but who all but ignored Clarke's warnings.
It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who were in charge of war efforts and who decided to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq for what we now know was really no rational reason at all.
So, no, let's not rewrite history. Let's also not ignore it.
For decades, conservatives have been slammed by Democrats as cold-hearted, corrupt, greedy war-mongers who want to kill social security, destroy public education, punish the poor, and start wars for oil profits. Who do we see about stopping that?
I don’t think Melissa Bean wants to hurt America’s security. But it is hardly inappropriate to cite her positions on the issue and question why she isn’t more supportive of efforts that could improve security. If she can’t defend herself or those positions as being in the best interests of our security, then that is her problem – just as if the Republicans can’t effectively make the case that privatizing social security is actually the only way to save it, raising standards and fighting the complacency of the teachers unions will improve public education, welfare is a generational trap that perpetuates the poverty cycle, and we went to war – correctly or not – because we thought it was in the best interests of our safety and security….well, that would be our problem.
You can talk to the people who give Americans that impression. They currently work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and in the two leadership offices on Capitol Hill. ;)
(Admit it, you set yourself up for that one.)
you missed the point. 99.999% of the time, Democrats' first reaction to being attacked as "soft on terrorism" is to - how did you put it - 'whine' about how their patriotism is being questioned, instead of offering any explaination of why or how their policy positions are better for our national security.
If you're upset that your party has a history of being less trusted on military and security matters, you can talk to the people who live in Boston, Vermont, and San Fransico.
Now, I know Clinton didn't have the facts during his "ambush as he calls it" on Fox News...but perhaps he and you should stop using Richard Clarke as your white knight...Clarke himself says Clinton left no plan for dealing with Bin Laden...and Clarke wasn't removed...he was in his same position when 9/11 happened.
Please, try looking at the facts...and don't be such a partisan hack, man that's annoying.
McSweeney could stop this crap if he wanted. He must be losing. This shows real desperation.
The complete and utter politicization of every minor detail of the "war against terror" and the war in iraq is essentially what my column was about. Y'all are just buying into the DC spin and proving for all to see right here how empty this "debate" really is.
Nice try though.
And Hankster... Our Father, Richard Clark, who art in heaven... Because Richard Clark had an idea, it must be the best one ever, because we love him, and squeeze him....
Now... on the otherhand, if you want to see who the NRCC doesn't care about just look at Zinga.
Libs have mastered the art of the negative campaign. National and local examples abound. Two famous examples: Lyndon Johnson's commercial implying Goldwater was going to cause nuclear war and Lisa Madigan's last minute newspaper ad claiming that Birkett was responsible for the New England sniper shootings.
And dirty tricks? How about Wisconsin Dems sending their kids out to slash GOP tires?
So please, spare us the mock outrage.
And if you think everything's going just smoothly in DC these days, you're either extremely partisan or blind.
My problem with you, besides thinking you are so smart, is that when you say for people to look at the facts, I think it only fair you should try that first and stop name calling and being angry.
Please leave and head back over to the Illinois Leader website. Scram.
Rich's column in today's CS-T and this blog post could've generated a civil discussion about a real bipartisan problem, but - once again - your constant, foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing babble brings this blog string to a screeching halt.
Head back over to one of your many, fine online conservative echo chambers and leave CapFax to the rest of us.
David
Here's the link to today's Roll Call article on the NRCC money. http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News...
It seems to me that McSweeney, like the NRCC, just doesn't have any principles, and will go to any extreme to win this election. He should be held accountable for where his supporters are getting their money.