1 wrong choice

GOP candidates lukewarm in Hastert support Jonathan E. Kaplan

Several Republican candidates in challenging races this fall said their support for Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) as the top House Republican in the 110th Congress will depend on the findings of an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).

Republicans Martha Rainville (Vt.), Rick O’Donnell (Colo.) and Peter Roskam (Ill.) would wait for the Justice Department to complete an investigation before deciding how to vote, said campaign aides.

“If Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales finds that anyone who holds elected office was aware of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior, that person is not fit to serve the public and should be removed from office,” said O’Donnell’s spokesman.

However, Republicans will vote on leadership elections during the lame-duck session in November and will formally vote on the Speakership (should they retain the majority) at the start of the new Congress early next year. In all likelihood, the Gonzales investigation will still be ongoing.

Based on the information available, state Sen. Ray Meier (R-N.Y.) said he would support Hastert. Other candidates like Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), who is running for his father’s seat, avoided the issue.

“We have no stance on that right now — we’ll worry about that after we win,” said Bilirakis.

In a statement, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said, “I will not vote for any leader who knew or should have known about Mark Foley’s conduct.”

Randy Graf, who is running for GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe’s seat in Arizona, said Hastert has been helpful to his campaign and did not want to speculate about what might happen.

“When I get to D.C., I’ll sit down with the House leadership and discuss who deserves to be Speaker,” he said.

Meanwhile, GOP incumbents continue to distance themselves from their leaders. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) cancelled an event with Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.) cancelled an event with Hastert. Reps. Lewis, Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) and Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) declined to comment about whether they would vote for Hastert.

Brad Haynes and Cameron Joseph contributed to this article.

(October 5, 2006, The Hill)

There were 9 Congressmembers cited in the article above. 3 declined comment on if they'd vote for Haskert. 3 others said they would wait to see how the investigation comes out before they voted even though the investigation will probably go longer than they have time. 1 says that he would cast a No vote. Another says that they's speak with the house leadership to see who deserves to be leader. 1 cancelled an event scheduled with Hastert.

One said that he supports Hastert.

Ray Meier.

As a counselor, I ask you to support Mike Arcuri. He prosecutes predators.

One of the volunteers, Clarice. told me a while ago that we need more prosecutors and fewer Big Oil Company defence lawyers in Congress.

It's even simpler than that, isn't it?

At today's debates, Meier asked the audience to consider who of the two of the candidates would we more trust to represent them in DC.

When it comes to the abuse of those more helpless than us, there's a right and a wrong. I trust those who understand and do something about it.

I do believe that there's a spot down under for those who take advantage of children. The spot right below that floor is reserved for those who knew or should have known and did nothing. Giving back the tens of thousands of dollars that Meier took isn't my preferance. I wish it were donated to the Child Advocacy Center.



The shadow peanut gallery's been leaving comments here regarding Mike Arcuri's statement on HR6166 at last week's debate. Other bloggers who've long been open supporters of Ray Meier must be straining their keyboard, finger muscles and Internet connections in their frenzy to talk about that one answer.

I do have comments to write about the debate but they'll have to wait until I get the time to do it. But I want to respond to the comments left here.

And actually, it's one of Ray Meier's comment at the debate that is the base of my response. Ray's comment about wiretapping was that the "NSA was not listening in to [his] conversation with his sister in Cleveland."

No, they're not. And in all likelihood, this Badministration's not really caring about most of the commenters here either.

If anyone in this little corner of the blogesphere has any probability of getting the NSA's attention, being on a Badministration list, or being the target of a hate crime, it's me.

I'm Muslim. The President of the country I live in called for a crusade. Meier's who is running to represent me (so to speak) painted "the Muslim world" as terrorists. (Yea, he backpaddled pretty furiously to take the paint off, but in this d
ay and age, if he didn't mean it, he wouldn't have said it.)

Do I think that this Badministration will continue to use torture and other inhumane treatment of people? Absolutely.

That's why I want Mike Arcuri to be my representative in Congress.

I do think HR6166 could be improved, but, at least in my reading of it, it didn't raise the fear that some of the posts attempted to raise. Read it for yourself here.

Freedom of Blogging

One of the hardest parts of having this blog is that I believe in Freedom on Speech and that the best answer to the poor use of the freedom is better use of the freedom.

I have the option of disabling comments or forcing people to sign their comments. Instead, I allow anyone to post and permit anonymous postings. I do so in the hope that education and dialogue can occur. The few posts that I have rejected were either spam or private messages directly to me.

And I'm sure that you've seen that I've cleared cowardly posts that I obviously find stupid.

Why to I clear through the moronic ravings of cowards?

Nothing shows how sad and wrong they are better than they show themselves.