Which has caused more conservative outrage?
2006-11-01 05:59:18 · 15 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think both caused outrage. What Foley did was wrong and how some of the Republican leadership handled the situation APPEARS to be wrong (looks like not all the facts are in just yet on that). I think the Foley situation was a genuine outrage because it was clear that what Foley was doing was wrong, and it shed a very negative light on the GOP - and in the months preceding an election - that's never any good.
I think the outrage against Kerry is a false outrage. They will play it up like they're outraged because Kerry's "foot in mouth" moment can now be used as a weapon against the Democrats (even though Kerry himself is NOT up for re-election this year). But - it's false, because the Republicans KNOW that what Kerry said was a totally botched, unfunny joke that came out completely wrong - they KNOW that Kerry didn't mean at all that our soldiers are uneducated - he explained his position quite candidly & honestly on this morning's Imus show.
Nonetheless - the GOP will ignore that reality & instead use it as fuel for the fire.
The Democrats have done the same thing to the GOP.....I think most Democrats know that neither George Allen nor Trent Lott are racists - but both of them had "foot in mouth" moments too - which the Dems seized on for political reasons.
These situations work BOTH ways.......and it disgusts me when it happens in either direction.
2006-11-01 06:11:07 · answer #1 · answered by captain2man 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Foley is a loser. Foley is a disgrace. Foley is not one of the Republican Leadership. Foley wasn't nominated by his party to be President of the United States. Kerry could have apologized. many times. He 'chose' to first insult, and then lie about it. As a Recognized Leader in the Democratic Party. Leaders of Parties are expected to speak for the party. John Kerry just spoke for yours.
2006-11-01 06:04:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I propose that the top shrink for contributions be executed away with, and that the utmost payouts in retirement nevertheless stay as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "supply away" application yet one that all of us make contributions to love a chit expenses plan, and could be secure against different makes use of by capacity of the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? while you're so traumatic approximately it then why do no longer you; first placed it returned into the internal maximum sector and make to have been no can take out funds from it for their very own activity, 2d pay returned each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, third take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here yet on no account paid a penny to it, and ultimately have it the comparable for each individual; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they want some thing extra they do it on their very own with out the tax payers investment it?yet, the economic stytem feeding the imbalances had on no account been incredibly replaced. They, a team of scholars, stated that all and sundry expenses of activity could be 3% or much less for each individual to develop into wealthy if needed (that could desire to be genuine additionally to taces). the terrific economic problem could be, they pronounced, while there have been no expenses of activity. Why no longer attempt this answer? the wealthy might nevertheless be wealthy. My question is: while soial protection will become a difficulty related to federal bills, why no longer artwork with a balanced or benefit funds and spend no extra effective than is offered in, as any kinfolk has to attempt for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents with the intention to get rules that serve the country? God bless u.s..
2016-10-21 02:29:54 · answer #3 · answered by turrill 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More outrage? Kerry's misunderstood statements. More harm? The Foley actions and the resulting cover up.
2006-11-01 06:00:41 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Foley is no longer a Representative. Kerry on the other hand is still the leader of the Dem Party, so I'm more upset with him.
2006-11-01 06:00:59 · answer #5 · answered by MEL T 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Kerry
2006-11-01 06:00:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Kerry. They brush everything wrong in their party under the table & act as though nothing ever happened. I wouldn't be suprised if in 3 or 4 years they backed him in another election.
2006-11-01 06:07:15 · answer #7 · answered by ChaliQ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The republicans aren't upset by Kerry's remarks. They are ecstatic! It is the kind of thing they have been waiting for. They will use it to their advantage!
2006-11-01 06:01:02 · answer #8 · answered by Nunya 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As they asked Foley to leave or be booted out, and all they have done is ask for Kerry to apologize I guess you can decide for youself. You moron.
2006-11-01 06:13:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
EVERYONE was upset with Foley.
Seems like only the Republicans criticized Kerry.
Why on Earth does it have to be one or the other?
This was an exceptionally ill-conceived and jejune question, even for this board. That's saying a lot.
2006-11-01 06:01:03 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋