Comments on: Putting GOP Interests Over Child Safety Is NOT Acceptable http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/ Firedoglake weblog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:17:24 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Why Now? » Blog Archive » Privilege = Private Law http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-319185 Why Now? » Blog Archive » Privilege = Private Law Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:26:35 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-319185 <p>[…] A common refrain heard is clearly stated in general terms by Christy Hardin Smith, and in more specific terms by Hastert constituents Karen and Michael: more concern was shown for the Republican Party than the high school students involved. […]</p> […] A common refrain heard is clearly stated in general terms by Christy Hardin Smith, and in more specific terms by Hastert constituents Karen and Michael: more concern was shown for the Republican Party than the high school students involved. […]

]]> By: libertycap http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-318098 libertycap Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:17:04 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-318098 <p>I’m coming late to the table, but I was so moved by Christy’s words. Perfecto. Stunned. Spoken like a prosecutor and a mom. Addressing the issue like no one else can. </p> <p>Hoping this moves voters to elect a Democratic Congress in droves; as if torture and war crimes, illegal wars, violations of the Constitution, and stolen elections wouldn’t do it.</p> I’m coming late to the table, but I was so moved by Christy’s words. Perfecto. Stunned. Spoken like a prosecutor and a mom. Addressing the issue like no one else can.

Hoping this moves voters to elect a Democratic Congress in droves; as if torture and war crimes, illegal wars, violations of the Constitution, and stolen elections wouldn’t do it.

]]> By: Larry http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317824 Larry Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:30:45 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317824 <p>Icky things?</p> Icky things?

]]> By: P J Evans http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317727 P J Evans Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:36:03 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317727 <p>“Just Say NO” to Republicans!</p> <p>FWIW, Howard Berman’s LA phone is<br /> 818-994-7200 and his LA fax is 818-994-1050<br /> Office is at 14546 Hamlin Ste 202, Van Nuys, CA 91411</p> “Just Say NO” to Republicans!

FWIW, Howard Berman’s LA phone is
818-994-7200 and his LA fax is 818-994-1050
Office is at 14546 Hamlin Ste 202, Van Nuys, CA 91411

]]> By: sea biscuit http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317699 sea biscuit Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:24:31 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317699 <p>so when clinton and a consenting ADULT did icky things together, that was worth impeachment, but a sitting congressman … who solicits a CHILD …. gets to just resign?</p> <p>send the bastard to jail; no, put him under the jail</p> so when clinton and a consenting ADULT did icky things together, that was worth impeachment, but a sitting congressman … who solicits a CHILD …. gets to just resign?

send the bastard to jail; no, put him under the jail

]]> By: Mickey http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317642 Mickey Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:04:28 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317642 <p>As always, Christie puts things clearly, and gets to their center. Her question [”Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?”] deserves an answer. The answer is “No.”<br /> In fact, by now, we are to the point where asking this question is naive - maybe even a mistake. Not taking responsibility for anything negative is at the center of a strategy that is so much the rule that it should be called “the Bush Administration Code of Honor.” They are not responsible for:</p> <p>voting irregularities in 2000 & 2004<br /> doing nothing about al Qaeda prior to 911<br /> cooking the Intelligence to justify the War with Iraq<br /> not sending enough troops to Iraq<br /> “outing Valerie Plame” to discredit her husband<br /> actively ignoring the Geneva Conventions<br /> having a relationship with Jack Abramoff<br /> hiding information about the Iraq Civil War</p> <p>…among other things. Reddhedd’s question [”Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?”] has a clear answer. The answer is a loud “<b>No</b>!”</p> As always, Christie puts things clearly, and gets to their center. Her question [”Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?”] deserves an answer. The answer is “No.”
In fact, by now, we are to the point where asking this question is naive – maybe even a mistake. Not taking responsibility for anything negative is at the center of a strategy that is so much the rule that it should be called “the Bush Administration Code of Honor.” They are not responsible for:

voting irregularities in 2000 & 2004
doing nothing about al Qaeda prior to 911
cooking the Intelligence to justify the War with Iraq
not sending enough troops to Iraq
“outing Valerie Plame” to discredit her husband
actively ignoring the Geneva Conventions
having a relationship with Jack Abramoff
hiding information about the Iraq Civil War

…among other things. Reddhedd’s question [”Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?”] has a clear answer. The answer is a loud “No!”

]]> By: 1 Boring Old Man » responsibility… http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317629 1 Boring Old Man » responsibility… Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:59:28 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317629 <p>[…] Posted on Saturday 30 September 2006 Putting GOP Interests Over Child Safety Is NOT Acceptable … The adults in this situation, who were apprised of the problem, ought to have intervened on these kids’ behalf.  I’m sorry, but there it is.  And from what I can tell, the GOP leadership has devolved into "woulda, coulda, shoulda" this morning — with Boehner pointing the finger at Hastert, and then taking it back, and Hastert playing dumb.  Someone dropped a whole lot of balls on this one — and that is simply not acceptable.  Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility? … As always, Reddhedd from Firedoglake puts things clearly, and gets to their center. Her question ["Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?"] deserves an answer. The answer is "No." […]</p> […] Posted on Saturday 30 September 2006 Putting GOP Interests Over Child Safety Is NOT Acceptable … The adults in this situation, who were apprised of the problem, ought to have intervened on these kids’ behalf.  I’m sorry, but there it is.  And from what I can tell, the GOP leadership has devolved into "woulda, coulda, shoulda" this morning — with Boehner pointing the finger at Hastert, and then taking it back, and Hastert playing dumb.  Someone dropped a whole lot of balls on this one — and that is simply not acceptable.  Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility? … As always, Reddhedd from Firedoglake puts things clearly, and gets to their center. Her question ["Does no one in the entire GOP know how to take responsibility?"] deserves an answer. The answer is "No." […]

]]> By: nobrakes http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317627 nobrakes Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:58:44 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317627 <p>I have had the unpleasant experience of being in the same bar with Reynolds (he is not my Congressman). He is a pompous ass. If I hadn’t of been sober(fairly) I more than likely would have told him so. I don’t get around much anymore, but should I see that overfed walking ego again, I surely will. Only then I would ask him if he likes “chicken” too. Bastards.</p> I have had the unpleasant experience of being in the same bar with Reynolds (he is not my Congressman). He is a pompous ass. If I hadn’t of been sober(fairly) I more than likely would have told him so. I don’t get around much anymore, but should I see that overfed walking ego again, I surely will. Only then I would ask him if he likes “chicken” too. Bastards.

]]> By: Shell http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317614 Shell Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:51:16 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317614 <p>Boehner totally creeps me out. Is he supposed to be handsome or something? Those light blue eyes and the fake tanned skin … shudder.</p> Boehner totally creeps me out. Is he supposed to be handsome or something? Those light blue eyes and the fake tanned skin … shudder.

]]> By: neurophius http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317597 neurophius Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:39:37 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#comment-317597 <p>Thanks, Prof. OK, I looked at Jane’s new post, and you are correct, the ““we’re taking care of it” language in the Wapo at some point last night is not contained in the current version, either on the WaPo or on Lexis/Nexus. In any event, Jane has it covered.</p> Thanks, Prof. OK, I looked at Jane’s new post, and you are correct, the ““we’re taking care of it” language in the Wapo at some point last night is not contained in the current version, either on the WaPo or on Lexis/Nexus. In any event, Jane has it covered.

]]>