Anne Coulter's view of Dems and Torricelli situation

[daveleau]

Man, she can be over the top sometimes but this one is pretty much right on! Dems will only attack their own for moral problems when they start to lose. What kind of horrible trend did Bill (Clinton) start? Not to say that the Republicans do not have bad candidates, I mean look at Nixon. But at least Republicans know when a person has become too corrupt for their own good. Dems loved Clinton when he was in and overlooked his dozens of unethical bombshells. They still won't attack Gore with any zest b/c he may be their best hope in 2004 (oh the humanity!). He is not nearly as bad as the Clintons in the ethics department, but he has plenty of skeletons in the open that are being pushed back in the closet to be overlooked by the amoral (meaning "without morals") Dem party. The Dems even take Clinton scandals and try to pawn them off on Bush AND ARE SUCCEEDING! Can anyone say Enron? There is no lin between Enron's bad ethics and Bush except that they were housed in his state. WorldCom wasn't, and Bush si still being blamed for that one too by the desperate Dems who cannot find a chink in Bush's armor and have had to result to name calling and insulting his intelligence (a typical Dem ploy because of their own inability to debate based on logic and facts).

Well, I have ranted enough. Here's the article I mentioned above and it is a good one:

http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/100202e.htm

[osprey4]

I also loved this in the Wash Times today:

"In public life," he explained maintaining impressive blush-control, "if you actually seek more than satisfaction for yourself in the things you achieve, you will always be frustrated. I've never been frustrated because it's enough for me."
It is? Then why in God's green Garden State didn't Mr. Torricelli tell that to David Chang, once the erstwhile entrepreneur, now serving a stretch in a federal pen for dicey campaign contributions to Mr. Torricelli (natch), started showering the senator with pricey baubles, fancy suits, fistfuls of cash and a wide-screen TV? No matter. Better to "think about the trophies of my life," as Mr. Torricelli puts it, those political triumphs "that really only I know about, but really that's enough."
Preserving the Democratic Senate majority at any cost, even by saving a senator who prized diamond earrings more than his reputation, was the order of the day. As for the voters? Fuggeddaboutit, Senate Democrats seemed to say: The people of New Jersey will never know the difference.

Well, I'm a New Jersey voter and I know the difference between Bob Torricelli and Frank Lautenberg. One was caught and the other never was.

Neither gets my vote.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021004-18915558.htm

[OuTpaTienT]

This is good:

Not one to miss out on a hot trade, Streisand also invested in Rush Limbaugh's radio network, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

http://www.drudgereport.com/strei5.htm

[osprey4]

Well, she invested in Clear Channel, a huge megalopoly, hardly Rush Limbaugh's personal network.

She loves gathering her wealth, while criticizing those responsible.

[Epidemic]

Should they be able to replace a candidate in the last days of a campaign just because they are loosing?

Does this mean that any race can now replace their candidate with a ringer in the last minutes of a race.?

Here is one I have not heard the answer to.

What made them change the law from 36 to 51 days? Who sponsored such a bill and for what reason?

This could get interesting. You save you best candidate for troubled races. Lets do this from the democrat point of view. You keep clinton in reserve, 30 days before an election you replace a loosing candidate with a ringer. This means you can test candidates and if luck has them ahead you save your ace. But if you start to lose a key seat you just toss in the clinton card(Jokers are wild after all)


Hey isn't Barbra striesand supposed to be living in another country right now baldwin for that matter as well?

Why does anyone listen to movie stars? Do people believe that they have some sort of insight into life or something?

[osprey4]

Originally posted by Epidemic
What made them change the law from 36 to 51 days? Who sponsored such a bill and for what reason?
Why does anyone listen to movie stars?

The law says a candidate cannot drop out less than 51 days before the election. And the party must replace that candidate not less than 48 days prior. Torricelli dropped out with 36 days to go and his successor was named two days later. So of course the state Supreme (Idiots) Court says, "No problem!" Their decision was based primarily on the state Attorney General who said it would be "feasible" to reprint ballots in time for the election.

Yes, why do people listen to movie and pop music stars? I've often wondered that. Sean Hannity had a guest the other day, a woman who plays in some TV show I never heard of and he asked her that same question.

[daveleau]

Yes, why do people listen to movie and pop music stars?

This boggles my mind as well. The most morally and ethically reprehensible people on the planet who divorce frequently and are hopped up on drugs more than they are sober are trying to drive our socio-political agenda and are succeeding! What does that say about our society!?!

There are few ethically sound celebrities who speak out and they are usually conservatives (not necessarily Dems, Reps or Libertarians, but conservatives).