NationStates Jolt Archive

Ad Showing Troop Coffins Causes Clash of the Parties (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ad-showing-troop-coffins-causes-clash-of/20060714074609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT, The New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 13 — In an echo of the last election cycle, political operatives are at odds over a Democratic advertisement featuring coffins coming home from war.

The advertisement, a short film posted on the Web site of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is being attacked by Republicans as tasteless and disrespectful of American troops in Iraq.

In 2004, President Bush’s campaign released an advertisement showing a flag-draped body being removed from the site of the World Trade Center after the terrorist attack there. The shot outraged some victims’ families, who accused Mr. Bush of exploitation.

The current advertisement, a much smaller-scale production appearing only on the Internet, shows rows of coffins covered by American flags and lined up inside a military transport plane. The image is one of a montage of shots illustrating troubles that Democrats attribute to Republican leadership. Others include a gas pump displaying a price of $3.35 a gallon, and New Orleans residents stranded outside the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina.

“Things have taken a turn for the worse,” a line of opening text says.

Officials of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is led by Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, say they posted the advertisement more than a week ago. But Republicans did not seem to notice it right away.

Now, however, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has demanded that Democrats apologize for the clip. Even the former majority leader Tom DeLay, who has said little publicly since his resignation from the House last month, has issued a statement describing the ad as an act of “pathetic desperation.”

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican committee, said in an interview Thursday: “They’ve cited the President Bush ad showing the firefighters carrying someone away. I’m not sure how that’s the same as showing a soldier who’s given his life in battle in a flag-draped coffin. Nine-eleven was an event that brought people together; Democrats are trying to rip people apart. I think there’s a big difference there.”

But Mark McKinnon, a top Republican strategist and ad maker for Mr. Bush, said Democrats had not crossed any boundaries of taste.

“This is one where I respectfully disagree with my colleagues: I think it is an appropriate image,” Mr. McKinnon said. “I thought it was appropriate when we used it.”

“It reminds people of the cost of 9/11,” he added. “It reminds people of the cost of war. People die in wars, and people should understand that we shouldn’t hide from that fact.”

Democrats dismissed Republican criticism as hypocritical.

"No administration in American history has so partisanized or politicized a war as this administration,” said Howard Wolfson, a Democratic strategist who advises Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. “They have absolutely no grounds to make any criticisms of this kind.”

07-14-06 07:05 EDT

I like this. It's a step in the direction towards a bolder and less apologetic philosophy than the current meek "Republican Light" approach that has failed them so far.

Hey, if the Busheviks can politically scavenge off the 9-11 victims constantly then turnabout is fair play. Also, how come it's okay to display dead Muslim carcasses in the news like they were covering a championship buck and turkey shoot but showing the flag-draped coffins of fallen American troops is an outrage? What's good for the goose is good for the gander too I say.

They've let the Republicans sodomize their public image for too long, it's about time they started bringing out the cold, gritty mud themselves.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

I don't know if this will work, I don't think it worked well for the Bush people either.

I don't know if this will work, I don't think it worked well for the Bush people either.

No it didn't work for them either. I condemned that ad and I condemn this one. Stop using death to further your agendas.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

Rock on. The last sentence is dead on.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

As long as you guys keep putting New England liberals up there, we will continue to win.:)

No it didn't work for them either. I condemned that ad and I condemn this one. Stop using death to further your agendas.

Exactly why I hate Cindy Sheehan. and I agree with you 100%.

And the line between two major parties becomes that much thinner.

The Democrats have been absolutley vile in the way they have used and continue to use the media to accuse, try and convict innocent people simply because they differ politically. That is a tactic that dictators use, they are just about there - all they are missing is gaining power.

Is it possible that the controversial nature of this advertisement may push moderates away from the Democrats in the upcoming elections?

Is it possible that the controversial nature of this advertisement may push moderates away from the Democrats in the upcoming elections?

Not possible but likely.

Is it possible that the controversial nature of this advertisement may push moderates away from the Democrats in the upcoming elections?


well it didn't seem to push Republicans away when they were doing practically the same thing, so why would it? Unless you are suggesting that Democrats have higher ethical standards thant the Republicans, so this type of thing might actually bother them.

well it didn't seem to push Republicans away when they were doing practically the same thing, so why would it? Unless you are suggesting that Democrats have higher ethical standards thant the Republicans, so this type of thing might actually bother them.

Well, that's kinda what I'm getting at. The Republicans don't really need the moderate votes as much as the Democrats do. There are more Republican party voters than the Democrats have. To have a good chance of success in the upcoming elections, they need moderates. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would be worried that these ads would reflect badly on me.

The Democrats need to focus more on Nancy Pelosi's budget-balancing plan and harp on fiscal discipline as the goal for 2006-2008 and beyond; the American people aren't going to vote for Democrats in large enough numbers unless the Dems start to hammer the Republican congress on their weakest point, namely the irresponsibility of these elected officials with our tax money.

They need to get away from Iraq and whining about gas prices and focus on the things that will matter in '06 and beyond; a solid budget-balancing plan combined with a strong energy plan will deliver a one-two punch to the Republicans seeking reelection and place the party in more favorable standing for the 2008 election.

with the short attention span we USians have, I suggest that the Dems work in secret on their platform and dont release any information until the last month so there is no time to come up with good enough smear campaigns. they should not reveal their candidates until then either.

well it didn't seem to push Republicans away when they were doing practically the same thing, so why would it? Unless you are suggesting that Democrats have higher ethical standards thant the Republicans, so this type of thing might actually bother them.



Not really, the Republicans never participated in such a vile campaign. Not even close. The Democrats are trying to criminalize political differences.

No it didn't work for them either. I condemned that ad and I condemn this one. Stop using death to further your agendas.



Rock on. The last sentence is dead on.

Oh, lord. Can't you get yourself another ban or something?

Not really, the Republicans never participated in such a vile campaign. Not even close. The Democrats are trying to criminalize political differences.

This has got to be the most rediculous post I have ever seen.

Oh, lord. Can't you get yourself another ban or something?

Ironiclly, most of those whom I always butted heads with got a laugh out of my opening post. It was only one mod that doesn't have a sense of humor who did it. No one complained either.

Why don't you come up with something more intelligent than this waste of a post.

Not really, the Republicans never participated in such a vile campaign. Not even close. The Democrats are trying to criminalize political differences.


lol - okay, I'll bite - please show me proof of this legislation where they are trying to make it illegal to have political differences (whatever that means - illegal to be other than democrat?).

Oh, lord. Can't you get yourself another ban or something?

I see someone can't deal with political differences.

This has got to be the most rediculous post I have ever seen.


you should search his/her history - this guy/gal has some hilariously extreeme views and is not afraid to use them.

you should search his/her history - this guy/gal has some hilariously extreeme views and is not afraid to use them.

I know.

lol - okay, I'll bite - please show me proof of this legislation where they are trying to make it illegal to have political differences (whatever that means - illegal to be other than democrat?).

come to think of it... maybe this is the solution we need - perhaps then we can stop worrying about party and make decisions based on teh credentials of the person running only.

come to think of it... maybe this is the solution we need - perhaps then we can stop worrying about party and make decisions based on teh credentials of the person running only.

Wait...wouldn't the (literal) criminalization of political differences make the US a one party state?

Wait...wouldn't the (literal) criminalization of political differences make the US a one party state?

yeah, thats what I am saying - if theres one party, essentially we wont have to even think about party, just reasons why the person should be voted for or not.

of course it's stupidly idealistic because then the people would just do the same things to each other within the party, but I like to consider new angles... besides - it's not like anythign will actually change will it?

yeah, thats what I am saying - if theres one party, essentially we wont have to even think about party, just reasons why the person should be voted for or not.

of course it's stupidly idealistic because then the people would just do the same things to each other within the party, but I like to consider new angles... besides - it's not like anythign will actually change will it?

Idealistic? You call a one party state Idealistic? Surely you jest.

I am not going to argue the point of equivalency, but if you consider this the be equivalent behavior to showing the coffins of the WTC, and that the Dems criticized that as being morally reprehensible and in severely bad taste… that means that while Bush used questionable judgment about what he thought was appropriate while the Democrats are knowingly doing what they themselves consider to be morally objectionable and in serious bad taste.

They both might follow the same tactics, but one did it out of questionable taste, while the other party is purposefully being an asshole. Which is worse?


Partisan politics is exactly why some of the founding fathers were so opposed to having political parties. We should focus on the individual in question, not on some organization whose members hold a very wide variety of positions.

Idealistic? You call a one party state Idealistic? Surely you jest.


no you big silly

I am saying that it is probably idealistic to think that we can end our problems with idiot politicians and corrupt party politics were such a law ever to pass

...
Partisan politics is exactly why some of the founding fathers were so opposed to having political parties. We should focus on the individual in question, not on some organization whose members hold a very wide variety of positions.

exactly!

*hi 5*

no you big silly

I am saying that it is probably idealistic to think that we can end our problems with idiot politicians and corrupt party politics were such a law ever to pass

Ah. That makes much more sense. I was beginning to worry about you. :p

Ah. That makes much more sense. I was beginning to worry about you. :p

but but
:upyours: :sniper:
:D :gundge:
:( :mp5:
:headbang: :fluffle:

but but
:upyours: :sniper:
:D :gundge:
:( :mp5:
:headbang: :fluffle:

I feel a flood of conflicting emotions. I sense that I am very confused.

come to think of it... maybe this is the solution we need - perhaps then we can stop worrying about party and make decisions based on teh credentials of the person running only.


We had this once, it was known as the Era of Good Feelings in the 1820's...it lasted right up until the party split due to the backing of Andrew Jackson rather than John Quincy Adams... basically, in a Democratic system, there will always be sides which people will follow. There will be supporters of one candidate who lash out against those that differ from their own views. It's human nature.

lol - okay, I'll bite - please show me proof of this legislation where they are trying to make it illegal to have political differences (whatever that means - illegal to be other than democrat?).

The point is that they are not using the laws as intended. They are using them, along with false accusations of crimes to smear poitical opponents.

The Earle - Delay debacle in Texas and the Valarie Plame deal are two examples. No crime was committed, the laws that were allegedly broken either did not exist, or did not apply to the situation at all.

This has got to be the most rediculous post I have ever seen.


Perhaps this post (directly above - #34) explains what I meant.

<sigh>

It's never been about "us vs them" in my mind. But human nature is not so reluctant to make the differences bear out that way.

Both political parties have behaved reprehensibly over the 230 year history of the United States.

Right now Republicans happen to have that upper hand. I have found the political strategies of Karl Rove, while ultimately being winning ones, soulless.

I also do not think much of apologists that say that Republicans are just doing what they are elected to do, because it is much more than that. I also don't think very highly of the intelligence of those here who say that Republicans have broken no laws and trampled no rights in this process, because it is self-evident on a daily basis that there is a reactionist element in the Republican Party that cares nothing for the niceties of Constitutional rights and has been busy dismantling those rights at a breakneck pace.

I am not very pleased with Democrats who just generally fall in line and go with the flow, either.

The image of my fallen comrades coming back from Iraq have become somehow shameful. This nation needs to mourn, and it needs to be reminded that there is a cost for wars. Otherwise all this debacle in Iraq is is a series of remote events where we deal with casualty figures from afar as cold, heartless numbers. As long as citizens do not see coffins, it can be unreal and somehow more remote.

It is not disrespectful to see the coffins of my brothers in arms coming home for the last time. It is shameful to hide those coffins from the light of day. Those lives need to be celebrated, remembered not just by their families, but by all of us.

There is a higher price this President and the evil men that attend him will be paid. When their lives are over, and they stand before the gates of heaven, that is when they will be punished. We can no longer expect criminals in politics to be punished properly here for their transgressions against the law and the Constitution. We simply must wait patiently for them to pass from this life via the natural course and answer to the higher tribunal.

About Time Democrats Started Growing Razor Teeth
About time the Democrats started growing ... up. :D

About time the Democrats started growing ... up. :D

Physician, Heal Thyself.

I like this. It's a step in the direction towards a bolder and less apologetic philosophy than the current meek "Republican Light" approach that has failed them so far.

Hey, if the Busheviks can politically scavenge off the 9-11 victims constantly then turnabout is fair play.
It's a fallacy to compare the two. Yes, both involve images of dead people, but in the former the death was not caused by the US Government; in the latter it was.

Not possible but likely.
The other ad didn't make a dent in your loyalty to the Republicans, I don't think that Democrats will be swayed by this.

<nods in agreement> Yep.

The other ad didn't make a dent in your loyalty to the Republicans, I don't think that Democrats will be swayed by this.

It's not the party voters one needs to be concerned about. It's the undecided moderates. Something as controversial as this might push them away. The Democrats need the independent vote much more than the Republicans do.

Is it possible that the controversial nature of this advertisement may push moderates away from the Democrats in the upcoming elections?
Where would they go? They wouldn't vote Republican. More than likely they just wouldn't vote. The Democrats and the Republicans have abandoned both reason and the people.

Where would they go? They wouldn't vote Republican. More than likely they just wouldn't vote. The Democrats and the Republicans have abandoned both reason and the people.

Some right leaning moderates might vote republican. Or more might vote for a 3rd party. Or possibly not vote at all. Either way, it may hurt the Democrats in the upcoming elections.

Hey, if the Busheviks can politically scavenge off the 9-11 victims constantly then turnabout is fair play. Also, how come it's okay to display dead Muslim carcasses in the news like they were covering a championship buck and turkey shoot but showing the flag-draped coffins of fallen American troops is an outrage? What's good for the goose is good for the gander too I say.

They've let the Republicans sodomize their public image for too long, it's about time they started bringing out the cold, gritty mud themselves.


All well and good, but as a soldier I can assure you that I and my comrades would not like our dead bodies, in coffins or not, used as a political point. Fuck you if you think it's appropriate, it's my body and I don't want it on the news. And neither would my family. That's disrespectful.

Some right leaning moderates might vote republican. Or more might vote for a 3rd party. Or possibly not vote at all. Either way, it may hurt the Democrats in the upcoming elections.
And that effects anything how? All the politicians are the same. The same fuck-ups are going to occur no matter who's in office.

And that effects anything how? All the politicians are the same. The same fuck-ups are going to occur no matter who's in office.

That may be true, but the vast majority of the population has yet to see it that way. It's all about image.

Exactly why I hate Cindy Sheehan. and I agree with you 100%.
Hate is a very strong word, and shouldn't be used flippantly

The other ad didn't make a dent in your loyalty to the Republicans, I don't think that Democrats will be swayed by this.

I'm loyal to neither party.

The point is that they are not using the laws as intended. They are using them, along with false accusations of crimes to smear poitical opponents.

The Earle - Delay debacle in Texas and the Valarie Plame deal are two examples. No crime was committed, the laws that were allegedly broken either did not exist, or did not apply to the situation at all.


Um, Delay is still under indictment. Some charges have been dismissed. Others have not. Earle is a zealous prosecutor...perhaps overzealous...but he's a zealous prosecutor of politicians OF BOTH PARTIES.

As for Plame (a Republican,) the CIA (not exactly an arm of the Democratic Party,) asked the justice department (headed by Republican John Ashcroft,) to investigate. Ashcroft recused himself and passed the investigation over to Fitzgerald (a Republican.)

Do I need to call a Waaaaaambulance? I think all this whining gave you a boo-boo.

At this point, I'm pretty sure your posts are either an act or you're being paid by Sean Hannity. Either way, I just wish you'd be more entertaining.

All well and good, but as a soldier I can assure you that I and my comrades would not like our dead bodies, in coffins or not, used as a political point. Fuck you if you think it's appropriate, it's my body and I don't want it on the news. And neither would my family. That's disrespectful.

So you agree that neither party should use the dead to gain political points? Or is it just the military dead that should be treated with respect?

I would like to know your answer as a retired military man, myself.

It's a fallacy to compare the two. Yes, both involve images of dead people, but in the former the death was not caused by the US Government; in the latter it was.

So the jihadis were all just innocent bystanders? :rolleyes:

I'm loyal to neither party.
Your are loyal to George Bush, who just happens to be a Republicant. :eek:

So the jihadis were all just innocent bystanders? :rolleyes:

Who said that? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Um, Delay is still under indictment. Some charges have been dismissed. Others have not. Earle is a zealous prosecutor...perhaps overzealous...but he's a zealous prosecutor of politicians OF BOTH PARTIES.

It is more accurate to say Ronnie Earle is a zealous prosecutor of *political rivals* of both parties since all his indictments of fellow Democrats happened in the time when Texas was still a one party state. But yes, the Ronnie Earle Clown Show is a legitimate example of persecution by Democrats for political reason. >_<

And as long as we're talking about Wilson and Plame allow me to express my hope that the liberals enjoyed what their Fitzmas has brought them. ;) It was amusing to read Novak reveal that he got her name from Joe Wilson's entry in the Who's Who book. :D

Who said that? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Francis Street's phrase "killed by the US government" certainly implied it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It is more accurate to say Ronnie Earle is a zealous prosecutor of *political rivals* of both parties since all his indictments of fellow Democrats happened in the time when Texas was still a one party state. But yes, the Ronnie Earle Clown Show is a legitimate example of persecution by Democrats for political reason. >_<

And as long as we're talking about Wilson and Plame allow me to express my hope that the liberals enjoyed what their Fitzmas has brought them. ;) It was amusing to read Novak reveal that he got her name from Joe Wilson's entry in the Who's Who book. :D

Oh, I'm sure the Bush administration will mess up again. It's only a matter of time. Maybe the next time, they won't skate.

As for Novak, he could have gotten a copy of their marriage license. Her name, as are the names of all CIA agents, is a matter of public record. It's also funny that Novak thought a reply of, basically, "no comment" meant that he should go ahead with the publishing of the name of a CIA operative. It's not like the CIA press office couuld tell him she was covert. To do so would have been knowingly revealing secrets, which would have been a crime.

Yes, it is about time they started growing razor teeth and told the American people what they really think!

Because the more they get their insane ideas out there, the more the Republicans will kick their asses come election-time.

Seriously. It did'nt work for Howard, it won't work for the rest...They'll just appear more and more mentally ill to the populace.

Francis Street's phrase "killed by the US government" certainly implied it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No, that's how you construed it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Purely as an analogy, imagine I take my dog for a walk. I trip and lose hold of his leash. The dog runs into the street and gets run over by some dude talking on his cell phone.

The dude yakking is directly responsible for killing my dog, but I, as the person responsible for the dog and the one who allowed the dog to be in that position, albeit accidentally, also killed my dog.

NOTE: I am NOT comparing soldiers to dogs or jihadis/insurgents/terrorists to a-holes who are more worried about their phonecall than controlling their deadly automobile.

Yes, it is about time they started growing razor teeth and told the American people what they really think!

Because the more they get their insane ideas out there, the more the Republicans will kick their asses come election-time.

Seriously. It did'nt work for Howard, it won't work for the rest...They'll just appear more and more mentally ill to the populace.

Make up your mind. Do Dems have no ideas or crazy ideas? Conservatives should at least be consistent in their foam-flecked rhetoric.

Make up your mind. Do Dems have no ideas or crazy ideas? Conservatives should at least be consistent in their foam-flecked rhetoric.
Moderate Dems? Bad ideas...

Extreme Dems? Crazy ideas.

Moderate Dems? Bad ideas...

Extreme Dems? Crazy ideas.

Okay, what are these bad ideas by moderate Dems that you speak of?

Extreme Dems? Are they like Democrats who do trick jumps on their motorbikes and drink Redbull(tm) all day?

Okay, what are these bad ideas by moderate Dems that you speak of?
Federal Welfare-Statism....I'm fine with localized welfare, but getting the Feds in on it is just a ploy by the politically-minded leaders of the Democrats to make themselves look good to the poorer elements of the nation...Also a ploy to tug at the heartstrings of some fuzzy-headed middle-classers.

"Soft-handed" Socialism in general.

Extreme Dems? Are they like Democrats who do trick jumps on their motorbikes and drink Redbull(tm) all day?
Har-dee-har-har...

Read these and weep...Try the Anti-War rally, San Fransisco, September 24 2005 for some real screwballs... (http://www.zombietime.com/)

[QUOTE=Gymoor Prime]Um, Delay is still under indictment. Some charges have been dismissed. Others have not. Earle is a zealous prosecutor...perhaps overzealous...but he's a zealous prosecutor of politicians OF BOTH PARTIES.


He is a overzealous prosecutor of Political Enemies. Every Dem he prosecuted was a political enemy. He vowed he would do exactly what he did, and then went on a witch hunt. He is prosecuting Delay for a "crime" that was not a crime when Delay did it. Reid, Pelosi etc. have all done the same thing - and in fact Delay was the only one who declared it in his disclosures. The Democrats tried to hide it.


As for Plame (a Republican,) the CIA (not exactly an arm of the Democratic Party,) asked the justice department (headed by Republican John Ashcroft,) to investigate. Ashcroft recused himself and passed the investigation over to Fitzgerald (a Republican.)

Again, no crime was committed. Meanwhile Louisianna Democrat is actually on film taking $100,000 from an FBI informant. The Republicans have not pressed that issue at all - and in fact even are helping him.


DeLay has been headlines for months, Jefferson barely gets a mention.

Federal Welfare-Statism....I'm fine with localized welfare, but getting the Feds in on it is just a ploy by the politically-minded leaders of the Democrats to make themselves look good to the poorer elements of the nation...Also a ploy to tug at the heartstrings of some fuzzy-headed middle-classers.

WHo was it who reformed welfare most significantly? Oh yeah. Clinton. What have the Republicans done about it in their time controlling all 3 branches of the government?

"Soft-handed" Socialism in general.

Saying something is bad because of a label is fuzzy thinking.

Har-dee-har-har...

Read these and weep...Try the Anti-War rally, San Fransisco, September 24 2005 for some real screwballs... (http://www.zombietime.com/)

OMG, some Dems/Greens/Lefties/Libs are crazy!

You realize most Klansmen are Republicans/conservatives, right? Would it be fair if I painted all conservatives with that brush? No, it wouldn't.

You have an ingrained bias against "liberals". Try at least pretending that they are fellow humans and actually listen to WHAT THEY SAY AS INDIVIDUALS. Thank you.

WHo was it who reformed welfare most significantly? Oh yeah. Clinton.
Yeah...But he was a moderate/centrist Dem, and the reform happened under a Republican congress.

What have the Republicans done about it in their time controlling all 3 branches of the government?
Partly a mixture of "not enough political capital" and "lets' not rock the boat"...Democrats will have a field-day propoganda-wise if we go after the Welfare budget in a significant way.

Saying something is bad because of a label is fuzzy thinking.
It's not just the label, silly...It's because Socialism does'nt work.

OMG, some Dems/Greens/Lefties/Libs are crazy!

You realize most Klansmen are Republicans/conservatives, right?
There is no solid proof of that, and you must also remember that during the end of the 1800s, the Klansmen were all Democrats, and the Democrats supported slavery back then...I believe there are still a fair number of "Dixiecrats" out there still...So we're even.

You have an ingrained bias against "liberals". Try at least pretending that they are fellow humans and actually listen to WHAT THEY SAY AS INDIVIDUALS. Thank you.
I do listen to them as individuals, but when they start talking about politics, I just cannot take then seriously at all...They're full of bad ideas and misinformed opinions.

Yeah...But he was a moderate/centrist Dem, and the reform happened under a Republican congress.

Oh, so Moderate Dems do have some good ideas.

Partly a mixture of "not enough political capital" and "lets' not rock the boat"...Democrats will have a field-day propoganda-wise if we go after the Welfare budget in a significant way.


Excuses, excuses.

It's not just the label, silly...It's because Socialism does'nt work.

Tell that to Scandinavians. They have a better standard of living, better life expectancy, better education, and better infant mortality rates than the U.S.

I do listen to them as individuals, but when they start talking about politics, I just cannot take then seriously at all...They're full of bad ideas and misinformed opinions.

You've just described humanity in general. You just choose to overlook the bad ideas and misinformed opinions of those more closely aligned politically to you.

Oh, so Moderate Dems do have some good ideas.
Yes, but they ripped those ideas off from us Repubs ;)

Excuses, excuses.
You do realize we live in a democratic republic, and that it is necessary to compromise with the other significant parties in order to survive politically right? Be realistic.

Tell that to Scandinavians. They have a better standard of living, better life expectancy, better education, and better infant mortality rates than the U.S.

Prove it.

You've just described humanity in general. You just choose to overlook the bad ideas and misinformed opinions of those more closely aligned politically to you.
I believe the liberal ideas are more detrimental to the nation than those of those "closer to me politically"...Also, which opinions specifically are you referring to?

Yes, but they ripped those ideas off from us Repubs ;)

Translation: They got it done when you couldn't

You do realize we live in a democratic republic, and that it is necessary to compromise with the other significant parties in order to survive politically right? Be realistic.

Excuses excuses. I thought your party was the party that didn't govern by polls?

Prove it.

Oh, we have to prove our assertions now? Does that rule apply to you as well? Just look it up. You do know how to look things up, right?

I believe the liberal ideas are more detrimental to the nation than those of those "closer to me politically"...Also, which opinions specifically are you referring to?

Other than Welfare (which a Democratic Administration addressed and a Republican Administration AND Congress hasn't,) you've failed to identify any ideas either.

Stop thinking in labels. Stop thinking in "us and them" categories. Just stop. That's the most detrimental political idea of all. And the politicians USE it to get out support.

May I just say...from here, from the outside (I think my house is denoted "There be dragons" on US maps)...

...you're nuts. The lot of you. All 300 million.

Why was Plame behind a desk at Langley in the first place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, U.S. officials said Plame's identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the mid-1990s. The Cubans learned her identity when they read supposedly sealed documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

Her value as a "covert" asset vanished long ago. One of the reasons Plame had a desk job at Langley, having been brought back to the U.S. in 1994, was that the CIA suspected her identity had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

In fact, when 36 news organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of The New York Times' Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, who faced criminal charges for refusing to name their sources, they made the argument, citing Gertz's reporting, that Plame's identity was already known worldwide.

It could be argued that Mrs. Wilson blew her own cover when she made a $1,000 contribution to the Al Gore for President campaign and listed her CIA cover company as her employer in her FEC filing. In 1999, when she made the contribution, she listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a fictitious Boston-based company designed to provide cover for some CIA operatives and employees.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who regularly appears on Fox News Channel as a military and foreign affairs commentator, has said that he once sat in Fox's green room with Joe Wilson, who volunteered that his wife worked for the CIA. That was more than a year before Novak's column.

Reporter Andrea Mitchell, when asked in an October 2003 appearance on CNBC who knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, said: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was in Niger."

In a follow-up October 2003 column, Novak wrote: "The disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the CIA was not much of a secret" and it "was well-known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."



http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060714

May I just say...from here, from the outside (I think my house is denoted "There be dragons" on US maps)...

...you're nuts. The lot of you. All 300 million.

I think the figure is closer to 6.5 billion...

I think the figure is closer to 6.5 billion...
Not in this case. This particular bout of insanity is very specific.

You've got two conservative parties fighting each other over utterly pointless things, shedding all shades of reason in the process and in the end you elect a guy for his hairstyle.

I repeat: I think you're all nuts.

Why was Plame behind a desk at Langley in the first place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, U.S. officials said Plame's identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the mid-1990s. The Cubans learned her identity when they read supposedly sealed documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

Okay, so her identity might have been known to Cubans and the Soviets.

Her value as a "covert" asset vanished long ago. One of the reasons Plame had a desk job at Langley, having been brought back to the U.S. in 1994, was that the CIA suspected her identity had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

In fact, when 36 news organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of The New York Times' Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, who faced criminal charges for refusing to name their sources, they made the argument, citing Gertz's reporting, that Plame's identity was already known worldwide.

Obviously that argument was not effective, since Miller and Cooper were forced to testify.

It could be argued that Mrs. Wilson blew her own cover when she made a $1,000 contribution to the Al Gore for President campaign and listed her CIA cover company as her employer in her FEC filing. In 1999, when she made the contribution, she listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a fictitious Boston-based company designed to provide cover for some CIA operatives and employees.

Lol. What was she supposed to list? The CIA itself? That she worked for BJA WAS PUBLIC because that WAS HER COVER.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who regularly appears on Fox News Channel as a military and foreign affairs commentator, has said that he once sat in Fox's green room with Joe Wilson, who volunteered that his wife worked for the CIA. That was more than a year before Novak's column.

Any corroboration of that? I'm sure there's a listing for Wilson's appearance on Fox somewhere. This is, of course, before his Op-Ed, so I have no idea why FOX would book him.

Reporter Andrea Mitchell, when asked in an October 2003 appearance on CNBC who knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, said: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was in Niger."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510140009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Hume was quoting from an October 3, 2003, appearance on CNBC's Capital Report. Host Alan Murray asked Mitchell "how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" Mitchell responded, "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

In a follow-up October 2003 column, Novak wrote: "The disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the CIA was not much of a secret" and it "was well-known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

And of course, Novak would NEVER cover his own ass.

[QUOTE=Gymoor Prime]Okay, so her identity might have been known to Cubans and the Soviets.


Enough Said.


Obviously that argument was not effective, since Miller and Cooper were forced to testify.

Yep and that is what they testified to. The fact that they were forced to do it has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the report.




Any corroboration of that? I'm sure there's a listing for Wilson's appearance on Fox somewhere. This is, of course, before his Op-Ed, so I have no idea why FOX would book him.

They were both analysts at Fox at the time.

And of course, Novak would NEVER cover his own ass.

Why would he need to??? Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper, Bill Gertz, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Aldrich Ames, General Paul Vallely, and Andrea Mitchell knew. Mitchell is on record as saying "Mitchell responded, "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.""

What was her role in WMD'S???? - other than recommending her husband???




SHE WAS NOT COVERT. The story was already out - and NOT from Rove or other administration officials. PERIOD.

I'm loyal to neither party.
You say that so much, but do you think anyone believes you? In almost all issues you take the Republican stance.

So the jihadis were all just innocent bystanders? :rolleyes:
No you misunderstand. When yuo show pics of soldiers dead yu can point a finger at the government/party that caused the war. When you show pictures of 9/11 dead you pointing fingers at the jihadists, not at the other party.

Francis Street's phrase "killed by the US government" certainly implied it. :rolleyes:
There's another difference. Those soldiers were killed because they were in a place where they would not normally be, but for the actions of the US Government. The 9/11 victims were killed during their normal course of actions.

Federal Welfare-Statism....I'm fine with localized welfare, but getting the Feds in on it is just a ploy by the politically-minded leaders of the Democrats to make themselves look good to the poorer elements of the nation...Also a ploy to tug at the heartstrings of some fuzzy-headed middle-classers.

"Soft-handed" Socialism in general.

Conservatives demand that people give up their lives for the collective benefit, but are outraged when asked to give up their money for the collective benefit. How inconsistent.

Yeah...But he was a moderate/centrist Dem, and the reform happened under a Republican congress.
Didn't you just say that it was the moderate Dems that had the fuzzy socialist ideas?

Partly a mixture of "not enough political capital" and "lets' not rock the boat"...Democrats will have a field-day propoganda-wise if we go after the Welfare budget in a significant way.
This would not be problem if the majority of the population, as you claim, were behind you in wishing to dismantle welfare.

It's not just the label, silly...It's because Socialism does'nt work.
What you think of as socialism has worked for decades. I assume you're not so thick as to believe that the Dems want to recreate Cuba or the USSR in America.

There is no solid proof of that, and you must also remember that during the end of the 1800s, the Klansmen were all Democrats, and the Democrats supported slavery back then...I believe there are still a fair number of "Dixiecrats" out there still...So we're even.
That's like shouting "Christians started crusades!" in response to criticism of Muslim jihadists today. It's an irrelevant point to the modern world.

The KKK are ideologically closer to the Republicans nowadays. Why do you think there are so few black Republicans? So few gay Republicans?

I do listen to them as individuals, but when they start talking about politics, I just cannot take then seriously at all...They're full of bad ideas and misinformed opinions.
No more ridiculous than the irrational nationalism and anger that "informs" most conservative ideas.

Prove it.
Are you also going to ask for proof that the sky is blue?

You do realize we live in a democratic republic, and that it is necessary to compromise with the other significant parties in order to survive politically right? Be realistic.
Do you realise that the Republicans have more power now than the Democrats have had since the 1960s? They can do anything they want.

Not in this case. This particular bout of insanity is very specific.

You've got two conservative parties fighting each other over utterly pointless things, shedding all shades of reason in the process and in the end you elect a guy for his hairstyle.

I repeat: I think you're all nuts.
Well said!

Your are loyal to George Bush, who just happens to be a Republicant. :eek:

The only people I'm loyal to is God, parents, and my gf.

WHo was it who reformed welfare most significantly? Oh yeah. Clinton. What have the Republicans done about it in their time controlling all 3 branches of the government?


The Republicans. CLinton vetoed virtually the same exact bill twice - until the Republicans won congress and he was politically on the ropes after the mid-term elections. He was dragged kicking and screaming into welfare reform and then took credit once it was proven effective.


You realize most Klansmen are Republicans/conservatives, right? Would it be fair if I painted all conservatives with that brush? No, it wouldn't.

You realize huge numbers of republicans donated time and money to elect a democrat instead of David Duke - right. Most Klansman are not supporters of the current administration - as a matter of fact, they lead protests against him because of his war policy.

You say that so much, but do you think anyone believes you? In almost all issues you take the Republican stance.

Continue to believe that if you wish. That is your right.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

Democrats need to start being honest on their vision of the government, through its ELECTED representatives, and society in order to win elections.

We need to allow people to do what they want, irregardless of how "immoral," because the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in our lives, but we must be moral as a society and realize that the government has to step in to the economy to ensure fairness.

Laissez-faire has failed; look at the Depression. We need to convey to the American people that we need the government to play a central role in guiding the economy. If we are honest about our core beliefs, we will win.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

Democrats need to start being honest on their vision of the government, through its ELECTED representatives, and society in order to win elections.

We need to allow people to do what they want, irregardless of how "immoral," because the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in our lives, but we must be moral as a society and realize that the government has to step in to the economy to ensure fairness.

Laissez-faire has failed; look at the Depression. We need to convey to the American people that we need the government to play a central role in guiding the economy. If we are honest about our core beliefs, we will win.

Enough Said.

Yes. Enough said. Her identity but not her current assignment maybe sorta possibly could have been known by the Soviets and Cuba, NOT Al Qaeda or Iran.

Yep and that is what they testified to. The fact that they were forced to do it has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the report.

So...they were jailed to force them to testify about common knowledge. Riiiiiiight.

They were both analysts at Fox at the time.

Prove it.


Why would he need to??? Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper, Bill Gertz, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Aldrich Ames, General Paul Vallely, and Andrea Mitchell knew. Mitchell is on record as saying

I gave you the whole quote by Mitchell. Miller and Cooper were told by Rove et. al., we don't even know if the Ames story is true, since the exact contents of the information he had would not have been disseminated to the public, and Paul Vallely is a liar whose claim is easily debunked because Wilson WAS NOT ON FOX when Vallely's 3 different versions of what went down supposedly happened.

What was her role in WMD'S???? - other than recommending her husband???

Andrea Mitchell, who you used as a source, confirms she was a covert WMD specialist. Funny how you'll quote someone out of context and then, when the full context is shown, will suddenly toss aside their words. You miserable (probably fictitious) hack.

SHE WAS NOT COVERT. The story was already out - and NOT from Rove or other administration officials. PERIOD.

If she was not covert, there never would have been an investigation. Period. That's the thing you never seem to be able to answer. If she was not covert, why did the CIA ask for an investigation and why did the DOJ grant one?

Answer that, you boneheaded (probably just trolling) partisan puppet!

snip
So this is where that conversation went.

Continue to believe that if you wish. That is your right.
No, you're not at all an über-conservative partisan. :rolleyes:

Yes America can do better. Things will get better when the Liberals in Both houses of Congress get their asses tossed right out of power.

Revolutionary you say? Tell me.. how is this any differant then when pro-life activists shove dead fetus pictures in your face to prove a point?

Does it change your mind about abortion? No..
Does it aggarvate you? Yes..

If that was your plan, then mission accomplished. You've managed to make republicans hate you even more. But it's not going to sway anyone. Infact I think both parties know this, all the propganda they do is to merely piss off the opposing team. It's like when mascots dace around, but instead to arouse the fans it's to demeen the competition..

I think they both do a fine enough job on thier own of that. Don't you?

So you agree that neither party should use the dead to gain political points? Or is it just the military dead that should be treated with respect?

I would like to know your answer as a retired military man, myself.
Leave the dead alone. I don't think its appropriate to score points off of lives. However, I'm more inclined to stand up for military boys. Others peoples problems really aren't mine, cruel as it sounds. I have my own problems, but for someone in uniform I owe them that much, sappy as this crap sounds.

Yes. Enough said. Her identity but not her current assignment maybe sorta possibly could have been known by the Soviets and Cuba, NOT Al Qaeda or Iran.



So...they were jailed to force them to testify about common knowledge. Riiiiiiight.



Prove it.


I gave you the whole quote by Mitchell. Miller and Cooper were told by Rove et. al., we don't even know if the Ames story is true, since the exact contents of the information he had would not have been disseminated to the public, and Paul Vallely is a liar whose claim is easily debunked because Wilson WAS NOT ON FOX when Vallely's 3 different versions of what went down supposedly happened.



Andrea Mitchell, who you used as a source, confirms she was a covert WMD specialist. Funny how you'll quote someone out of context and then, when the full context is shown, will suddenly toss aside their words. You miserable (probably fictitious) hack.



If she was not covert, there never would have been an investigation. Period. That's the thing you never seem to be able to answer. If she was not covert, why did the CIA ask for an investigation and why did the DOJ grant one?

Answer that, you boneheaded (probably just trolling) partisan puppet!



If anyone illegally outed her, they would be prosecuted for THAT, not for not remembering a time frame.

No, you're not at all an über-conservative partisan. :rolleyes:

Notice I didn't say the word democrats.

Notice I didn't say the word democrats.

Can you name a Liberal Republican currently in Congress Corny?

:D

Leave the dead alone. I don't think its appropriate to score points off of lives. However, I'm more inclined to stand up for military boys. Others peoples problems really aren't mine, cruel as it sounds. I have my own problems, but for someone in uniform I owe them that much, sappy as this crap sounds.

It isn't crappy.

However, war has historically been an affair in which the people really don't generally care about until some sort of personal stake is added to the equation.

In this case "out of sight" is very much "out of mind." I do not believe for one moment that this administration does not allow pictures of coffins bearing soldiers for reasons of respect. It keeps the bodies out of public view because they know when Americans actually see flag draped coffins they start questioning the motivations of those who took the nation to war.

Do I like this? No. But if that is what it takes to jolt the nation out of it's blood soaked complicity then I wouldn't care if my coffin was pictured on the front page of every newspaper in the world.

War is unpleasant and nasty. People die. But if the war is just and prosecuted for the right reasons, most people rally and support it. If the war is unjust then there is a great deal for those who started it to answer to. It's high time we got some answers out of Mr. "Stay the Course."

Can you name a Liberal Republican currently in Congress Corny?

:D

Arlen Specter.

Arlen Specter.

Let's see his voting records...

Arlen Specter on Abortion (http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Arlen_Specter_Abortion.htm)

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:

-Increase funding and access to family planning services
-Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
-Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

-----

Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Specter scores 21% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Damn, that's pretty fucking liberal record on abortion there Corny.

Arlen Specter on Civil Rights (http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Arlen_Specter_Civil_Rights.htm)

Oppose gay marriage but support civil union

I oppose gay marriage but support civil union.

Source: 2004 PA Senate debate, in Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 10, 2004

So Liberal on Gay Marriage he's turning Pink(o).

Check out his voting record on the website. It's not 100% "Massachusetts Liberal" like you want everyone to believe.

Specter is a Moderate, but I suppose in your Bushevik world view that would make him a Liberal.

And once again Communal Property is pwned and passed around.

Gauthier? Do you live in the State of pa?

If anyone illegally outed her, they would be prosecuted for THAT, not for not remembering a time frame.

Quit dodging the question, USlaughingstock. In orfer to convict, intent has to be proven. The lack of conviction has nothing whatsover to do with her status.

Can you read?

Gauthier? Do you live in the State of pa?

Corny, Corny, Corny...

Are you trying for that "If you don't live in Pennsylvania you're not qualified to talk about Arlen Specter's public voting record and stance"? Kind of like how you kneeled down like UN Abassadorship ready to suck off Rumsfeld with that "Only Active Armed Forces Generals Have The Credibility and Legitimacy To Criticize Our Beloved Secretary of Defense (Whoops, I Forgot Active Generals Aren't Allowed To Discuss Their Personal Political Views!)" apology/defense?

Quit dodging the question, USlaughingstock. In orfer to convict, intent has to be proven. The lack of conviction has nothing whatsover to do with her status.

Can you read?

USLaughingStock thinks Al Capone was a legitimate businessman who happened to be a tax cheat, since he was only convicted on tax evasion.

:D

Corny, Corny, Corny...

Are you trying for that "If you don't live in Pennsylvania you're not qualified to talk about Arlen Specter's public voting record and stance"? Kind of like how you kneeled down like UN Abassadorship ready to suck off Rumsfeld with that "Only Active Armed Forces Generals Have The Credibility and Legitimacy To Criticize Our Beloved Secretary of Defense (Whoops, I Forgot Active Generals Aren't Allowed To Discuss Their Personal Political Views!)" apology/defense?

Do you live in the state of PA?

Do you live in the state of PA?

Yes. And I have photographic evidence.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/OSRC.png

Do you live in the state of PA?

Do you Corny? Trying to Appeal to Authority is pretty sad even for you. Just admit you've been smoked and passed around like a joint at Woodstock and call it a day.

:p

Do you Corny? Trying to Appeal to Authority is pretty sad even for you. Just admit you've been smoked and passed around like a joint at Woodstock and call it a day.

:p

Actually I do live in the state of Pennsylvania.

Actually I do live in the state of Pennsylvania.

"I live in Pennsylvania so I know more about Arlen Specter than you. Just like how my daddy being in the military makes me a military expert."

Give it up.

:rolleyes:

"I live in Pennsylvania so I know more about Arlen Specter than you. Just like how my daddy being in the military makes me a military expert."

Give it up.

:rolleyes:

You live there too remember? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/OSRC.png

Take it and run with it!

USLaughingStock thinks Al Capone was a legitimate businessman who happened to be a tax cheat, since he was only convicted on tax evasion.

:D

Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial for shooting the President, so USlaughingstock thinks he was an innocent man.

You live there too remember? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/OSRC.png

Take it and run with it!

Thank ye :D

Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial for shooting the President, so USlaughingstock thinks he was an innocent man.

Good one.

"I live in Pennsylvania so I know more about Arlen Specter than you. Just like how my daddy being in the military makes me a military expert."

Give it up.

:rolleyes:

Considering that i have done my own independent studies of military history since as far back as I can recall, I do have a wonderful grasp of military tactics as well as the rules of war.

And yes, I do know a bit more about specter than you do and frankly, I wouldn't vote for that son of a bitch if he was the only person running in the race.

It's called the "Republican Noise Machine" and will never work for the Democrats.
Nothing works for the Democrats, especially while they elect New England liberals to represent the party.

If they started putted people up to the plate like Zell Miller, I'd be tempted.

NE dem's SUCK

Considering that i have done my own independent studies of military history since as far back as I can recall, I do have a wonderful grasp of military tactics as well as the rules of war.

And yes, I do know a bit more about specter than you do and frankly, I wouldn't vote for that son of a bitch if he was the only person running in the race.

Ain't you a US army vet?

ANYONE is better than arlen spectre, that judas iscariot of the republican PA party.

Ain't you a US army vet?

I hate the Army :p

ANYONE is better than arlen spectre, that judas iscariot of the republican PA party.

Now I wouldn't quite call him that.

ANYONE is better than arlen spectre, that judas iscariot of the republican PA party.

If they started putted people up to the plate like Zell Miller, I'd be tempted.

So a moderate Republican "Judas" like Arlen Specter is disgusting, but a Democratic "Judas" like Zig Zag Zell is acceptable to you.

Partisan, much?

Partisan, much?

You should be the one to talk about Partisanship, Gauthier.

Can you name a Liberal Republican currently in Congress Corny?

:D

Senators: Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffe, Chuck Hagle are liberal Republican Senators. There a a lot of left of center/center Repulicans.


House of Representatives: Christopher Shays, Jim Leach, Ron Paul, Mike Castle, Sherwood Boehlert, Nancy Johnson, Verne Ehlers, and Mark Kirk come to mind off the top of my head.