Monday, October 16, 2006

Novak: Reynolds Among Republicans "Sure To Lose Their Seats"

Is Tom Reynolds history?

Conservative columnist Robert Novak, in his syndicated column yesterday, makes a strong argument that Reynolds (R-NY) is going to lose big to Democrat Jack Davis -- and Republican insiders know it.

"A Republican campaign operative with a reputation for accuracy has put Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, on the list of incumbent Republicans who are ''gone'' -- that is, sure to lose their seats on Nov. 7," Novak writes.

Polls from Zogby and RT Strategies show Reynolds trailing Davis by more than 15 points.

As JABBS has previously noted, Reynolds' campaign has flatlined because he is one of several Republican leaders who say they knew for months about inappropriate e-mails former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to House pages. The best Reynolds has done is pass the buck to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, apparently asked Foley to run for re-election, even though he likely knew of Foley's "behavioral problems."

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When is Harry “The Realtor” Reid going to resign and take his culture of corruption with him. Did he really have the audacity to use campaign money for Christmas bonuses? What the hell is wrong with him? As every lib democrat knows, they are holiday bonuses. How can you call it a Christmas bonus when you have separation of Church and State?

And lastly, I am glad to see he has amended his ethics report, but he should still resign. Does a bank robber who gets caught get to give back the money and not do jail time. Well maybe he would. As long as that bank robber was a democrat.

9:04 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Give it up anonymous.
You are obsessed on this blog with "Realtor" Reid's land sale, why don't you then bring equal attention to Dennis Hastert's real estate deal earlier in the year where he made $2 million from the sale of land in Illinois through using his office to guarantee passage of a highway project that would bolster the value of the property.
Hastert only made minimal disclosures to the public of the transaction.
Unlike the case with Hastert, Reid did not use the influence of congressional office to influence the value of his property in his deal.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060615/ai_n16497689
But it is irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Land sales and Christmas bonuses hardly compare to a political coverup of a criminal sex offender.
You got anything else?
Try to throw something else against the wall and maybe next time it will stick.

10:03 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

It's just false equivalency. It's the same as trying to suggest that William Jefferson is equal to Ney, Cunningham, Foley, DeLay, and now possibly Weldon.

10:28 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, apparently asked Foley to run for re-election, even though he likely knew of Foley's "behavioral problems." "


The way I understand it, Reynolds made a general plea for ALL the Rep. Congressional incumbants to run for re-election, given the tight race they face in November. He didn't go to Foley specifically.

In any case, since Hastert told Reynolds that the problem had taken care of, and that Foley had been spoken to about the unwelcome e-mails he sent to the 16-year-old, and he was instructed not to have any more contact with him or other pages, I don't see any "there" there. Foley acted as though he were being unfairly criticized and convinced everyone that his e-mails were innocent.

Still, I did think that Reynold's campaign ad was a bit weasley. It's never pretty to see someone try to deflect blame by throwing it on someone else. He should have just said that everyone took whatever action they thought was necessary at the time.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Thewaronterrible said...
"Unlike the case with Hastert, Reid did not use the influence of congressional office to influence the value of his property in his deal."


Of course he did, twot. Without his name, the land would never have been rezoned for a shopping center, which handed Reid a hefty $700,000 profit. And don't forget, Reid has four sons whose job is lobbying their father. So please, take your blinders off.

And for once, although for the life of me I can't figure out their motives in doing so, the ultra-liberal Philadelphia Inquirer is actually calling upon Democrats to make Reid resign.

"While now insisting he did nothing wrong, Reid is also offering to make a "technical change" to his earlier ethics reports if the ethics committee so desires. Simply giving the Democratic leader a mulligan is hardly the way to handle this case. When the Senate debated ethics reforms earlier this year, Reid was out in front to demand the toughest of standards from lawmakers.

"Americans have been shocked and even disgusted by revelations of corruption in our current system by Republican lobbyists, senior Bush Administration officials, members of Congress, and former congressional staff," Reid said in March. "The scandals have shown that some outsiders and insiders believed they could act with impunity."

That's how this case looks, too. Unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15745416.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp


Sorry. If someone would tell me how to shorten URLs, I would be happy to do it. I tried the only way I know how to do it, and it didn't work.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

The way I understand it, Reynolds made a general plea for ALL the Rep. Congressional incumbants to run for re-election, given the tight race they face in November. He didn't go to Foley specifically.

>>

That's not what Novak said in a previous column. He said that Foley had two job offers in the private sector and was planning to retire, and Reynolds talked him out of it.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"It's just false equivalency. It's the same as trying to suggest that William Jefferson is equal to Ney, Cunningham, Foley, DeLay, and now possibly Weldon."


Now THAT comment is truly rich, cutiepie, because I couldn't do better if I tried in pointing out exactly how brainwashed some of you guys really are. Thank you.

Of COURSE there is a moral equivilency in corruption, whether it be committed by Republicans OR Democrats. At some point you really should ask yourself why it is that you feel your sh*t doesn't smell? I mean, really.

How can you be so willfully ignorant of the facts? What? Do you actually believe it when Reid says it was a "clerical" error? Give me a break here.

Snoop is right. It's truly fascinating to observe you libs.!

12:49 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

as for your problem with long URLs, use < and then a href="link" and then > then some key word to describe the link, and then < and then /a>

that should work for you.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

"It's just false equivalency. It's the same as trying to suggest that William Jefferson is equal to Ney, Cunningham, Foley, DeLay, and now possibly Weldon.">>

My point is that one bad Democrat doesn't equal five bad Republicans in the House. Individually, on a one-to-one, they are equally bad.

Sorry for the confusion.

12:51 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"That's not what Novak said in a previous column. He said that Foley had two job offers in the private sector and was planning to retire, and Reynolds talked him out of it."


Fine, Cutiepie, I'll give you that if that's the case. But regardless, if everyone felt the problem had been resolved, then why would they encourage Foley, a popular Congressman, to leave? As I said, they were appealing to ALL of the Congressmen and women to stay on.

12:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"as for your problem with long URLs, use < and then a href="link" and then > then some key word to describe the link, and then < and then /a>

that should work for you."


I thank you, sir! :)

12:59 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"My point is that one bad Democrat doesn't equal five bad Republicans in the House. Individually, on a one-to-one, they are equally bad.

Sorry for the confusion."


Whew! Okay then. I'll put you back on the extremely short list of more reasonable liberals who post here. lol

Of course, I'm sure with a little investigative work, someone would be able to turn up a few more scandals on the Democrat side that would even up the score. ;) In fact, I know there's at least one out there now, but his name escapes me. I'll come back to this at a later time.

And how come Reid's illegal use of campaign funds to pay for gratuities for hotel support staff only gets a mention on page A-15 of the NYT? God knows if it had been a Republican it would have made front page headlines, above the crease.

1:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

In the meantime, here is some interesting reading with regard to Abramoff scandals.

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6061

Cutiepie, I tried to shorten the link but it didn't work for me. ???

1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOP.com is hardly an objective source.

1:36 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, assume all ( are actually < and all ) are actually >

the coding is:

(a href="yourwebsite.com")your website(/a)

I can't use the < and the > because the blogger site will give me a WTF response.

BTW, big assumption that I'm a "sir." I don't think I said that. Sort of like Snoop assuming all the liberals who post here are white, upper-class Manhattanites.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

But regardless, if everyone felt the problem had been resolved, then why would they encourage Foley, a popular Congressman, to leave?
The story we've been hearing is that Rove's people told Foley not to leave several months ago because it would affect his lobbying career.

Meanwhile, the Reid story really is more or less an error of omission, something he should have declared but did not. The underlying story is mostly nonsense and comes from the AP reporter's misunderstanding of what an LLC is. The word on this reporter is that he's an easy mark by partisan types looking to push whatever they've got under the hood (GOP and Dem sources). He's been flailing away at Reid and consistently getting things wrong.

Of course, I'm sure with a little investigative work, someone would be able to turn up a few more scandals on the Democrat side that would even up the score. ;)
Maybe, but maybe not. The GOP is the one in power now, which is part of the reason for the corruption of the likes of Delay and Cunningham. This isn't to say the Dems wouldn't be just as corrupt (well, on a historical level, current GOP corruption is a hard level to achieve, actually), so Ill just say that this isn't to say the Dems wouldn't be corrupt on the whole anyway like most politicos. But right now the GOP is, in part because they're in power, in part for other reasons.

1:45 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, it is typical you've conveniently ignored the real point about my post about Reid: WHY DON'T YOU ALSO DISCUSS THE QUESTIONABLE HASTERT LAND DEAL IF YOU WANT TO BELLY ACHE ABOUT REID?
Nothing that has come up currently on the Democratic side has even come close to the Abramoff and Foley scandals. Nothing.
The real offense is that you conservatives instead of addressing the issues within your own party, only go out of your way to point fingers.
"Whaaa! See, the Democrats are also do bad things. Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton!! Bill Clinton!!!"
The problem is it comes across as exactly that way to the voters: An immature, corrupt party more obsessed with looking for scapegoats instead of acknowledging its own weaknesses.
If Diebold doesn't screw up the election, expect a Democratic transformation of Congress.

By the way, try this simple method to shorten your links: http://tinyurl.com/

2:04 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"GOP.com is hardly an objective source.


If you'd like to dispute something, please be specific, like I am when people post things from sites such as "Media Matters" etc. Thanks. :)

Just because Brock doesn't include "DemocratsRule" in his web address, doesn't mean it's an objective source, although I can't seem to make some here understand that. After all, "Media Matters" sounds so fair-minded. :rolleyes:

5:18 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"BTW, big assumption that I'm a "sir." I don't think I said that. Sort of like Snoop assuming all the liberals who post here are white, upper-class Manhattanites."


Yes, indeed, cutiepie. You are absolutely right. My bad. Funny how we sometimes get a mistaken (or not) impression about things like that. I stand corrected.

From here on out, unless you give it away, I will try not to address you in a gender-specific manner. lol

And thanks for the help on the shorter link. I see what I did wrong. I left out the first "a", thinking you had used it as an article, and not part of the code. I got it straight now. :)

5:25 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Meanwhile, the Reid story really is more or less an error of omission, something he should have declared but did not.


Right, Dave. Now I know for certain what that "G" in your name stands for.

The Washington Post even had the nerve to suggest that it was possible that Reid was just a bit "sloppy". Now where have we heard that word before???

Oh, right. We were assured that Sandy Berger was just being "sloppy" when he stole and deliberately destroyed those after-action reports that were so vital to the 9-11 Commission investigation.

You libs are a trip!

5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as Delay goes, the only reason he is gone from Congress is because the Republicans were dopey enough to vote for a rule that would force their leaders to leave if they were indicted for anything.

So although he has not been convicted of any crime, he can't continue serving.

5:36 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

That was me, obviously. :)

5:37 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Right, Dave. Now I know for certain what that "G" in your name stands for.
Gorgeous, of course. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

The Washington Post even had the nerve to suggest that it was possible that Reid was just a bit "sloppy". Now where have we heard that word before???

My mom describing my room, back in the late 70s, when I didn't clean up after myself?

Meanwhile, though, this issue again really does turn on the fact that the reporter doesn't know what an LLC is. Reid bought the land in 1998, sold it in 2004, and in the meantime, failed to disclose that he transferred that ownership to an LLC. He didn't make money for "land he didn't own," as some are asserting. He didn't disclose this, however, which is the ethical violation.


Oh, right. We were assured that Sandy Berger was just being "sloppy" when he stole and deliberately destroyed those after-action reports that were so vital to the 9-11 Commission investigation.

More immaterial bullshit. I mean, we were assured that Richard Nixon wasn't a crook and he was so there which means all republicans are bad people and this that and so on and this is why nobody should ever listen to Jimmy Carter because he's ugly and democrats are ugly and fish have wings. Try to stay on-topic if you could, please.

6:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares