RSSGUTLESS Republicans … TN Senator Bob Corker Tells Tennessee GOP to Stop Free Speech … Corker Sides with Obama’s … Spouses Not Fair game
TN Senator Bob Corker, another shining example of why the Republican 
Party is in shambles and Republican voters are turning away from the process. Gutless Republicans have done more to destroy their own party than any Democrat or the Main Stream Media. Corker’s comments are a perfect example of why Republicans may not even be able to carry Tennessee for McCain in ‘08.
To the Republican Party … You GUTLESS bunch of elitist … ever wonder why you are in the minority in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate? Every wonder why Democrats now have the majority of State Governorships? Wonder why it is being projected that in this Falls election in 2008 that the Republican party is going to lose even more seats?
ITS BECAUSE YOU SO-CALLED REPUBLICANS ARE GUTLESS!!!
A day after the cry baby Obama’s go on Good Morning America, whining like a bunch of school kids who didn’t get their way regarding “so-called” attacks against Michelle Obama … Republican Senator Bob Corker has stepped in and condemned the Tennessee state Republican party for running an ad criticizing Michelle Obama’s lack-o’-pride comments.
The office of Senator Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, has weighed in today, siding with Senator Barack Obama’s objections to the state’s G.O.P. Web campaign against Michelle Obama.
To recap, the officialdom of the Tennessee G.O.P. posted a Web spot that mines remarks Mrs. Obama made in February that “first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad repeats footage of her speaking those words, interspersed with comments from Tennesseans, talking about how they’ve always been proud to be an American.
…Mr. Corker’s chief of staff, Todd Womack, demanded that his boss’ state party remove the Web ad:
After the Republican National Committee damaged our campaign with their infamous ‘Call Me’ ad — which we immediately denounced — we have strongly encouraged the national party and state parties to absolutely refrain from getting involved in negative personal campaigning, and we have asked the state party to remove their You Tube ad from their Web site.
Republicans will be in much better shape if we spend our time focused on issues like reducing federal spending, lowering the cost of health care and creating a coherent energy policy.
As was posted yesterday regarding if spouses are fair game, they are if they put themself out their to be. The question at hand is are candidates spouses Fair game? The answer is it depends on how the spouse presents them self. Why is Michelle Obama off limits, yet Bill Clinton is not? What’s the difference, I thought women wanted equality? Funny, no one cared when Republican candidate Fred Tompson’s wife, Jeri Thompson Kehn, was called a trophy wife and much worse. The heck with spouses, GWB’s underage children were not even off limits during his two terms and they were not even campaigning.
Even before her husband’s campaign is official, Jeri Thompson has had her share of publicity. She has had to fend off insinuations about her age and good looks — including a New York Times reference to her as a “trophy wife.”
As Michelle Malkin remind us, how is it negative, personal campaigning when Michelle Obama is speaking on the stump on behalf of her husband? No one is calling Michelle Obama ugly or stupid, those remarks are reserved for Donkeys making references to GWB.
“Negative personal campaigning?” What’s “personal?” Michelle Obama is out on the stump, speaking on behalf of her husband. The only thing “negative” about the Tennessee GOP’s ad came from Michelle Obama’s mouth.
Is it “negative personal campaigning” when candidate spouse Bill Clinton’s public campaign trail remarks are scrutinized, criticized, and analyzed?
Are we to shut up about him, too? Will the Republican civility-mongers not stop until the Right is completely disarmed?
Hot Air provided us with the Ad in question. Why is Michelle Obama above criticism for her spoken word? Are we to believe that Bill Clinton is not called on the carpet for his comments? Why are certain spouses exempt from political scrutiny? Spouses should be exempt only if they act like spouses during the campaign. However, as Hot Air states the second they become political operatives, they are fair game.
When spouses become campaign surrogates, as Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, and Cindy McCain have, then their statements on the stump are completely fair game for criticism. The Tennessee GOP should continue to run this ad, and Corker should worry less about protecting women from themselves and more about whether he can carry his state for John McCain in the fall.
Posted May 20, 2008 by Scared Monkeys Barack Obama, Bizarre, Government, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Presidential Election 2008, WTF | 13 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
13 Responses to “GUTLESS Republicans … TN Senator Bob Corker Tells Tennessee GOP to Stop Free Speech … Corker Sides with Obama’s … Spouses Not Fair game”
Leave a Reply
I feel like I am in a twilight zone … the media or the McCain/ Clinton campaigns do not challenge Barack Obama with his own words found within DREAMS OF MY FATHER and AUDICITY OF HOPE.
On April 29, 2008 … on National television … Barack Obama lied to the American people.
Obama stated that he was unaware of the racist, anti-American ideology of his pastor, mentor and friend for the past twenty years.
However … in his own words in DREAMS OF MY FATHER … Obama reveals that he knew exactly what Jeremiah Wright was all about from the getgo.
____________
Obama ‘Appalled’ By Ex-Pastor’s Comments
Wright’s Comments A ‘Show Of Disrespect To Me’
UPDATED: 5:24 pm EDT April 29, 2008
Calling the Rev. Jeremiah Wright “not the same person I met 20 years ago,” Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday he was “appalled” by his former pastor’s comments Monday at the National Press Club.
http://www.nbc10.com/politics/16060061/detail.html
IN HIS OWN WORDS – DREAMS OF MY FATHER
Audacity of Barack Obama and Rev. Wright
March 18, 2008 01:00 PM EST
In Senator Obama’s first book, titled Dreams of My Father and published in 1995 (after he had been elected president of the Harvard Law Review but before he had been elected to public office), Senator Obama wrote at length about Rev. Wright and his moving “Audacity of Hope” speech.
In Dreams, Senator Obama explained how he met Rev. Wright[, whom he mentioned had been “dabbling with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the sixties.”
He acknowledged that Rev. Wright immediately had given him fair warning that he was controversial, by quoting Rev. Wright as having said: “Some of my fellow clergy don’t appreciate what we’re about. They feel like we’re too radical. Others, we aren’t radical enough. Too emotional. Not emotional enough.”
He also acknowledged that Rev. Wright let him know at their first meeting that he looked unfavorably on America and expected to continue to do so, by stating, “Life’s not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be.”
Senator Obama left with one of Rev. Wright’s “Black Value System” brochures.
When Senator Barack listened to Rev. Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, September 11, 2001 was years away, but, Senator Obama admitted in Dreams, Rev. Wright castigated America.
Senator Obama put it this way: “Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded…the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate….”
So it’s hard to believe that Senator Obama was not familiar until very recently with Rev. Wright’s position on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It’s even worse for Senator Obama and Rev. Wright.
In Obama: From Promise to Power, by the Chicago Tribune’s David Mendell, Mr. Mendell relates (pp. 159-160) a meeting between Senator Obama and Rev. Wright when Senator Obama was deciding whether or not to run for the United States Senate:
“‘My name should be out there,’ Obama told his pastor. ‘but Carol Moseley Braun won’t say what’s she’s going to do, and I’m not gonna run against a black woman. If she’s gonna run, then I’m out. Until she says yes or no, I can’t say anything.”
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/
Wonder why it is being projected that in this Falls election in 2008 that the Republican party is going to lose even more seats?
ITS BECAUSE YOU SO-CALLED REPUBLICANS ARE GUTLESS!!!
I agree with the above. When is somebody in the Republican Party (or out of McCain’s camp) going to have the GONADS to call out both of the Obama’s again for WHAT THEY ARE?? Frauduelent LIARS !!!
Both of the OBAMA’s (Michelle included) should be held responsible and accountable for their own WORDS. Words and statements on this campaign trail from their own MOUTHS and MINDS, their own SPEECH WRITERS or their own BOOKS!!
Michelle had no problem using the MASS MEDIA to make her ridiculous ANTI-AMERICAN rants public–so why is she NOT FAIR GAME???
I think one of your previous posters was also correct—Obama may need to adjust his meds!! Are you kidding me?????? Wright is still wrong, Barrack HUSSIEN Obama is an ANTI-AMERICAN EXTREMIST who needs to get over himself in a hurry and lose his illusions of granduer.
The scariest thing about this is, this man and his slanted wife may actually have a chance of becoming our President and First Lady. HOLY SH*# !!!!!!!!!!!!!
It used to be that the political spouse was indeed off-limits to criticism … but that was in the days when they didn’t go out and campaign.
Since Michelle Obama, for better or worse, injected herself into the campaign and is going around the country making partisan speeches, she can hardly be exempt from criticism.
And if her comments offend voters … as Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
I’m sure that the boundaries of good taste have been crossed … I couldn’t believe it when Chelsea Clinton was asked about Monica Lewinsky … but that’s part of what you face when you inject yourself into the political arena.
Republicans in office have become a bunch of gutless wonders. Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of 90% of them.
How can one not fight and be allowed to use free speech in the process???
Its like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Your opponent can say anything, but you cannot retaliate or even defend yourself.
Republicans better learn real fast what put them into the majority.
It actually shows us just how bad Barack Obama truly is. Republicans are in disarray and look forward to getting destroyed in the Fall. With all this, McCain is even or ahead of Obama in polls. With the political atmosphere that surrounds the Republicans and their certain pasting they will get in the fall, Obama should be up by 10 points over McCain.
R
Red … you mentioned this Canadian’s hero … RONALD REGAN. The words “appeasement” was not part of his vocabulary.
Janet
++++++++
6-21-04
Before We Move on, Let’s Remember Ronald Reagan’s First Victory Against Terrorism
By Daniel Pipes
On November 4, 1979, a mob indirectly under Khomeini’s direction seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, an action that encouraged Islamist confidence and unleashed Muslim fury against Americans worldwide. That fury then took violent form when Khomeini inaccurately declared that the capture of the Great Mosque of Mecca on November 20 was a U.S.-led assault on the sanctities of Islam. (In fact, it was carried out by a group of bin Laden-like fanatics.)
A wave of anti-American mob attacks then followed in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The worst of the violence was in Libya and Pakistan; in the latter country, four deaths resulted – among the first fatalities of militant Islam’s war on America.
In reaction, Jimmy Carter hemmed like Bill Clinton and hawed like John Kerry. He got bogged down in diplomatic details and lost sight of principles and goals. For example, he responded in part to the embassy takeover by hoping “to convince and to persuade the Iranian leaders that the real danger to their nation lies in the north, in the Soviet Union.”
He responded to diplomatic efforts like a technician: “It’s up to the Iranians” to make the next move, he said in late 1980. “I think it would certainly be to their advantage and to ours to resolve this issue without any further delay. I think our answers are adequate. I believe the Iranian proposal was a basis for a resolution of the differences.”
In contrast, as president-elect, Ronald Reagan took a bold stance. He called the Iranian captors “criminals and kidnappers” and he called the political leaders “kidnappers.” If they understood from his insults, he added, “that they shouldn’t be waiting for me [to take office], I’d be very happy.”
Reagan and his aides adopted a threatening tone. “We’ll just have to do something to bring [the hostages] home,” he warned. Edwin Meese III, his transition chief, spoke more explicitly: “the Iranians should be prepared that this country will take whatever action is appropriate” and they “ought to think over very carefully the fact that it would certainly be to their advantage to get the hostages back now.”
Reagan’s tough words and tough reputation won the United States a rare bloodless victory over militant Islam. Even a senior Carter administration official, though preferring to emphasize his boss’s mistakes over Reagan’s strengths, grudgingly acknowledged that “we probably would not be getting the hostages out now if Carter had been reelected.”
__________
“The reality is that we must find peace through strength.”
Ronald Reagan, 1983
Red
I agree 100%, but keep in mind how many republicans WERE democrats, changed partys just to be on the ballot.
As far as Michelle, I got some advice….loose lips sink ships…
#5
the comment about reagan not being an appeaser doesn’t add up at all.
take a look at the iran-contra affair: thousands of american TOW anti-tank weapons were send to iran by the reagan administration to free hostages in lebanon.
some of those anti-tank weapons and converted versions of them iran send to hezbollah and were used in the 2006 lebanon war against the israeli’s.
led to much higher than anticipated deaths under israeli soldiers who thought to be save in their tanks and armored personal carriers.
in my opinion sending weapons to iran is way much worse than only talking to them.
I just went and did my civic duty today and voted. Who you may ask did I vote for? Mitt Romney of course. I REFUSE to vote for any of the three and will not vote for John McCain. So I relieved some of my frustrations about this campaign cycle and voted for the best one not running. Why would I vote McCain–would be just like voting for Obama or Hillary when I can vote republican and still vote for a Democrat? McCain has a lot of work to do to convince people like me he is deserving of our vote.
#5 obviously is in dire need of a US History lesson.
“RONALD REGAN. The words “appeasement” was not part of his vocabulary.”
What’s the Canadian definition of “appeasement”? Must be different than in the US.
Too funny
@ #8- Blue Moon— I feel your pain. I am not really in love with the idea of voting for John McCain myself….but a ballot cast in any other direction is also pointless.
Undeniably- this election year is absolutely the WORST for choices of leadership for our country that I can ever remember. Have to say happy that HRC won in KY today. I would rather see her on the ballot for the dem ticket than OBAMA. She would also prove to be a more formidable opponent for McCain than Obama…Ugh!
#10 – I might be leaning to your thinkin’ right now. But imo, it’s gonna be real hard for McCain to shake the “Bush” monkey off his back, if ya know what I mean. And I’ve said it before – Hillary and the Clinton machine are tough and really good…and I guess we’ll see in a few months if they can sway the super delegates.
I’m waiting for mano y mano – might make the choice easier, might make it harder. Who knows.
Someone tell the Obamas that “WE” know how special and entitled they feel but, this is America and last I checked I could say and have an opinion even if it does not stroke their egos….
If Michelle stands up in a public forum and rants then IMO she is fair game and I have every right to challenge her and speak my opinion as well.
If she and “Obo” don`t like it tell her to sit down and shut-up. She is an embarassment to HER people and America.
We need to go after Michelle Obama, and repeat it over and over until the rest of America knows that the Obama’s are unpatriotic. Every time Obama or anyone that Obama knows, says anything contraversal, we need to play it up in the media!
Let’s face it. Bush has left us with a disaster. $4/gallon gas while Oil Companies made $100 Billion in profits is not good for us. And the tax cuts went to the rich again, and Iraq is costing another $600 Billion and the polls show that Americans now know that Bush lied about the WMDs (which he HAD to in order to get rid of Saddam and get the Oil – DUH!)….
SO… Things aren’t going well for us, our only hope is to do another swiftboat job on Barack Hussein Osama!!