Republicans Restore "Integrity" to Government

Remove all ads!

Remember the great Republican revolution of the 90s? The Contract with America and all that good stuff? We all remember Bill Clinton's lack of candor in the Monica scandal. Then there was Gary Condit. Does anyone ever remember Chandra Levy? And who can forget Tom Delay sitting in his seat and refusing to stand when Clinton entered to give his State of the Union Address at the height of the Monica hearings in Congress - the great impeachment. All that seems like ancient history now.

These days, it seems that almost every rock that is kicked over in the Republican leadership enclave has seedy characters, with their wheeler dealers "pals" at the bottom of government policy. Take a look at this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/

At least with Clinton we knew what we were getting. Mostly because the Republicans spent millions of taxpayer money trying to get the "goods" on the Clintons, and keeping their media goons informed of the Clinton's every move.

But the Republican promise was that government would not only be smaller, more efficient and responsive to the American people, but that honor and integrity would be restored to the halls of our government. This battlecry was mouthed not only by the Republican leadership, but by their supporters and voters also.

All I have to say to all of you is: Thanks for restoring honor and integrity to American government. This is a government I can certainly be proud of.

[ April 11, 2005, 23:19: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

When politicians start talking about honesty and integrity, you know things are going to be bad.

When citizens starting taking them seriously, you know things are going to be worse.

 

And so it starts. I wish I could go back in time to capture all the negative things you guys have to say about your (then) current presidents so I could bring it out again once you start praising them. You guys seem to love all your ex-presidents and hate your current one. And more time that passes after their term in office, the more you love them!

 

Oh, I don't know about that HB.

Popular opinion on various Presidents (not my opinions, just some peoples perceptions)
Eisenhower - War hero who was an adulterer, and failure as president
Kennedy - Elitist east coast democrat who only got in office with daddies money that was made in organized crime
Johnson - Typical Blowhard Texas windbag (sorry Chandos, but it is a stereo type in other parts of the nation)
Nixon - Crook (Watergate, need I say more?)
Ford - Stumbling fool who was never elected President
Carter - was a better peanut farmer than a President
Reagan - Huh, what, you woke me up! We commence bombing the Soviet Union in 10 minutes, Iran-Contra scandal (I could go on)
Bush 41 - threw up at formal functions, stay the course, thousand points of light, totally ineffective
Clinton - Didn't have sex with Monica (unless you count that oral fixation), rented the Lincoln bedroom and gave nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign $'s, stipped the military and intelligence agencies
Bush 43 - God, I don't have the energy, see Chandos' post above for starters.

We worship and tear them down at the same time, just part of the American pastime of setting em up just so we can knock em down!

Back to the subject, can't argue, that is why we need a new vision in Washington, and need to vote out all the D's and R's and replace them with, I's, L's. and G's. But as long as the majority of Americans vote based upon who puts the most comfort in their lives, we will be stuck in the hell we so richly deserve.

 

Sorry here, HB. But I voted for Bill twice and thought he was a brilliant and competent politician, IMO. No one was more disappointed in his lack of character than I was. He should have taken his que from his favorite prez, Jefferson. When Jefferson was accused of his affair with Sally Hemmings, he remained tight-lipped - he would neither confirm or deny the accusation.

Here we have Bill, who wagged his finger at all of us, and said he was doing the "business of the American people." He wrapped himself in the trust of those of us who supported him to escape the accusations. He really could have just refused to answer his critics, and his supporters still would have supported him anyway, since many of us felt it was an inappropriate question to begin with. But instead he made himself the fool on nationwide TV, and made all of us who supported him, fools as well.

Now history has come full circle, and in just a few short years. I STILL remember Tom Delay and his cronies refusing to stand when Clinton entered the chamber because of his so-called "misdeeds." Could it be that what you are really seeing, HB, is the abusurdity of American politics?

Just today, I am hearing that more Republicans are starting to distance themselves from Delay and his actions. I am hopeful that the Republicans can put their own house in order. But I'm not making any bets just yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/delay.ap/index.html

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7169454/site/newsweek/

Here's the same old song - the "liberal media."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/06/delay.reponse/index.html

[ April 12, 2005, 07:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I kinda hope the Repubs drag their collective feet as long as possible on the "cleaning house" thing. Should send a nice message to the electorate, no?

 

Darkwolf: We do have a new vision in Washington: The Madonna of the Soap Bubbles! Oop!! She's gone again. And she was so beautiful when the lights were aimed right.

DeLay: Should he have sat for Clinton? Or should he have stood for the President? Having taken a moral stand, should he have conducted himself thereafter in a moral way? Or was it just political opportunism? Rhetorical, to be sure.