Do Repubs REALLY want Sanford (R-SC) to win tomorrow?

[Dot Com]

If I were a Repub in Washington, I would not want that guy coming up to Washington and being seen for 126 days out of the year (Cantor (R) has the House off for 239 days this coming session) Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress

Case in point- they already have Vitter (R) up there. Adding Sanford would only be another thumb in the eye/daily reminder of their hypocrisy.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Since when do liberals care about hypocrisy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

 

[Two Thumbs]

poor Dot

He hasn't figured it out yet that his party sucks just as much.

not being a rep anymore, I think it would be fucking funny and no real surprise.

b/c people prefer the devil they know.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

there was a lot of crap back in the day

Marion Crack house Barry got re-elected

can't recall his name; black douche, got caught committing a crime, cried on the House floor, got off with a standing ovation, then got re-elected

pfft, Chicago

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I were a Repub in Washington, I would not want that guy coming up to Washington and being seen for 126 days out of the year (Cantor (R) has the House off for 239 days this coming session) Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress

Case in point- they already have Vitter (R) up there. Adding Sanford would only be another thumb in the eye/daily reminder of their hypocrisy.

No way in hell we want that guy to win. That would be like re-electing marion barry [spl?]

 

[TheOldSchool]

If I were a Repub in Washington, I would not want that guy coming up to Washington and being seen for 126 days out of the year (Cantor (R) has the House off for 239 days this coming session) Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress

Case in point- they already have Vitter (R) up there. Adding Sanford would only be another thumb in the eye/daily reminder of their hypocrisy.

No way in hell we want that guy to win. That would be like re-electing marion barry [spl?]

Marion Barry... an embarassing, shameful stain on Washington D.C's history...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

there was a lot of crap back in the day

Marion Crack house Barry got re-elected

can't recall his name; black douche, got caught committing a crime, cried on the House floor, got off with a standing ovation, then got re-elected

pfft, Chicago

guess you beat me to the point.

 

[Dot Com]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

Didn't they refer to themselves as the "party of family values" or some such phrase?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

Didn't they refer to themselves as the "party of family values" or some such phrase?

Ya know, On my way to work and back every day I will sometimes take a detour and drive by John Edwards house that he grew up in and I just shake my head. it works both ways.

 

[Dot Com]

Conservatives used to say 'character matters' back in the Clinton years. That was their big catchphrase.

I think that fad is over.

Didn't they refer to themselves as the "party of family values" or some such phrase?

Ya know, On my way to work and back every day I will sometimes take a detour and drive by John Edwards house that he grew up in and I just shake my head. it works both ways.

w/ the diff that Democrats never claimed to be the "party of family values"

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't they refer to themselves as the "party of family values" or some such phrase?

Ya know, On my way to work and back every day I will sometimes take a detour and drive by John Edwards house that he grew up in and I just shake my head. it works both ways.

w/ the diff that Democrats never claimed to be the "party of family values"

Touche. you make a point well noted.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

The Demotwats are the party of no values. This is why they are soft on crime.

 

[Rozman]

On Hardball with Chris Mathews tonight it was mentioned a few times that Sanford did not get much
support from the Republicans.

 

[whitehall]

As usual the radical left sets the bar pretty high. Democrat congressman Garry Studds got a standing "O" from democrats when he returned from a suspension for raping an underage male page. Barney Frank had a homosexual prostitution ring operating out of his D.C. apartment and Bubba Bill was sexually abusing an intern barely older than his daughter.

 

[Dot Com]

Today's the big day. I almost hope Sanford (R) wins It would be no real big surprise seeing as its the cradle of the non-rich Republican voting base South Carolina.

 

[Ava]

As usual the radical left sets the bar pretty high. Democrat congressman Garry Studds got a standing "O" from democrats when he returned from a suspension for raping an underage male page. Barney Frank had a homosexual prostitution ring operating out of his D.C. apartment and Bubba Bill was sexually abusing an intern barely older than his daughter.

Yes, and Clinton lowered the bar by lying to Congress and the American public and getting away with it all in the end, so "yes" to the lowly, lying, Sanford for office. We know his details and he knows we will be watching.

Politics has hit a new low. Acceptance of any and all unprincipled people in the name of winning.

There is Substantial and Credible Information that
President Clinton Committed Acts that
May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment

Introduction:

Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/starr-excerpt.htm

 

[peach174]

Well the left were saying that the Democrat would win very easily because she was 6 to 9 points ahead.
Now it's pretty evenly split and the left are upset about it.
Will they vote for the wife cheater or the big government controller?
It's a pretty lousy choice either way.
This is a perfect example of the voters who are talking about having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Vote for the Dem who will take away more of your money and freedom?
Or - vote for the cheater who has no values or morals?

 

[007]

Since when do liberals care about hypocrisy?

When it's someone else's other than their's.

 

[Dot Com]

Today's the big day. I almost hope Sanford (R) wins It would be no real big surprise seeing as its the cradle of the non-rich Republican voting base South Carolina.

there ya go