CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in The nastiness continues

Re: The nastiness continues

x-hill-staffer — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:21:01 -0000

As a former Congressional staffer and campaign manager, I find it very interesting that the NRCC is so heavily funding these disgusting attack ads that I've been receiving in the 8th District recently. I find it compelling, however, to point out that the NRCC is unwilling to reject the $100,000 it received from disgraced Congressman Mark Foley. So the argument might be made that Congressman Foley's money is funding David McSweeney's attack ads.

Here's the link to today's Roll Call article on the NRCC money. http://hillnews.com/thehill...

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

David from Princeton — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:54:19 -0000

The NRCC is slightly over the top....ok they are so over the top that even Republicans like me will cease funding them in favor of conservative Democrats like Melissa Bean. We need more politicians of both parties who are "in the middle" like the rest of the country. You fools think that God is on your side...you have more in common with the Islamofacists of the world than your own population. Clean up your act.

David

Re: The nastiness continues

Scott Fawell's Cellmate — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:13:05 -0000

Kodak, Hypocrite Hater, Lovie's Leather, and Grand Old Partisan:

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

HANKSTER — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:52:44 -0000

Kodak: calm down, thats not very lady like of you. If you would read my post I simply corrected the false statements you said. I never said anyone was or was not to blame and unlike you I dont really do not think there is a President to blame, the entire government had serious problems.

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

Rich Miller — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:46:54 -0000

HH, you're gonna compare slashing a few tires to putting Bin Laden's photo on campaign lit? Spare me the mock outrage.

And if you think everything's going just smoothly in DC these days, you're either extremely partisan or blind.

Re: The nastiness continues

Hypocrite Hater — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:36:23 -0000

You know what I am sick of? Liberals decrying negative politics. As if the NRCC is the only committee running negative ads.
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.

Re: The nastiness continues

Kodak — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:18:55 -0000

Hankster...I'll add you to the list of hacks here who can't look past their partisan blinders...God, know wonder this Country is doomed. This is why I don't belong to a political party. But hey, at least Clinton "tried"...isn't that what he kept saying. Oh, and if you'll read my posts you'll see I blame Both 41/43 and Clinton...man, you guys are so lame.

Re: The nastiness continues

Rich Miller — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:01:35 -0000

LOL

Re: The nastiness continues

HANKSTER — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:59:25 -0000

Rich: I never thought I would ever say this but I agree with you.

Re: The nastiness continues

Rich Miller — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:34:53 -0000

TR, those campaigns don't "hurt my feelings." But calling your political opponent a terrorist sympathizer is just about the most unAmerican, despicable thing I can think of. If you think it's OK to do something like that, then you're a sick person.

Re: The nastiness continues

Frank — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:30:54 -0000

If the NRCC didn't care about David McSweeney they wouldn't spend any money on him whatsoever. Someone out of DC must care... Guiliani coming in on the 5th and Bush on the 12th with potential visits from Quayle and McCain (again!).

Now... on the otherhand, if you want to see who the NRCC doesn't care about just look at Zinga.

Re: The nastiness continues

illinoisEddie — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:15:08 -0000

It looks to me like a generic NRCC attack mailer. Which means the NRCC didn't spend a lot of money producing it. Which probably means the NRCC doesn't want to spend a lot of money on trying to help Larry McSweeney.

Re: The nastiness continues

Still Anon — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:08:28 -0000

Looks like McSweeny wants to compete with Roskam for a "Worst Person in the World" nomination.

Re: The nastiness continues

TR — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:06:10 -0000

Gee Rich, sorry that political campaigns hurt your feelings. Next time do me a favor get Carol Marin to write a garbage piece like that.

Re: The nastiness continues

HANKSTER — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:08:36 -0000

Loves Leather: Im not sure what your trying to be cute comment was supposed to mean but the point is that Bush had a memo given to him when he took office and its nothing but lie to say otherwise. At this point it does no good to blame Bush or Clinton or anyone but the Bush people trying to blame Clinton for it is a joke.

Re: The nastiness continues

Lovie's Leather — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:03:03 -0000

Yes, NW Burbs, I know that was the front and back of the same mailer. I was just saying that one side was okay, and the other side wasn't.

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....

Re: The nastiness continues

jeff wegerson — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:55:47 -0000

Thanks for the hat tip.

Re: The nastiness continues

HANKSTER — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:39:02 -0000

KODAK: maybe you should listen your own advice and look at the facts. A few days after Bush took office he recieved a memo called "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects"

Nice try though.

Re: The nastiness continues

Rich Miller — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:34:28 -0000

Actually, Kodak and others, neither political party failed to stop 9/11.

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

RealClear — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:33:30 -0000

Once someone brings in Bin Laden, it's kind of like bringing up Hitler in a comparison - the person doing it has lost the debate.

McSweeney could stop this crap if he wanted. He must be losing. This shows real desperation.

Re: The nastiness continues

Kodak — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:21:29 -0000

I am being honest about history...I blame Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton and Bush for failing in preventing terrorism...you, sadly, are too partisan to look at this issue objectively.

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

fedup dem — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:06:09 -0000

Are they talking about the same Melissa Bean that has been repeatedly criticized by her Democratic base in the 8th District for a number of votes where she sided with that (insert your choice of insulting term here) President?

Re: The nastiness continues

grand old partisan — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:42:56 -0000

nw burbs,

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.

Re: The nastiness continues

NW burbs — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:26:32 -0000

G.O. Partisan whines "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?"

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.)

Re: The nastiness continues

grand old partisan — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:04:50 -0000

Rich Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I appreciate and understand your point about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with our policy than you must not be working towards the same goalÃ¢â‚¬Â rhetoric that is used in DC campaigns. However, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be doing my job as the grand old partisan if I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t point out that it is hardly the exclusive realm of Republicans.

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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think Melissa Bean wants to hurt AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s security. But it is hardly inappropriate to cite her positions on the issue and question why she isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t more supportive of efforts that could improve security. If she canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t defend herself or those positions as being in the best interests of our security, then that is her problem Ã¢â‚¬â€œ just as if the Republicans canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ correctly or not Ã¢â‚¬â€œ because we thought it was in the best interests of our safety and securityÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.well, that would be our problem.