(R) X-Sen Craig was thrown to the dogs by the Rep. Party, while (D) X-Pres Clinton was supported by the DEM.?

Question

A President, who lied to the American people. "I did not have sex with that woman!", and cost the tax payer millions of dollars, ultimately keeps his office, and now his illustrious wife claims to have more experience in dealing with world leaders when she also claims she didn't know about what was happening in her own house. The Republicans should have suppported Craig as the Democrats did for Clinton. I am very disappointed with the Republicans, they don't have any backbone.

The ONLY fresh face, with fresh ideas, and a handle on what is wrong with Washington is Barac Obama. If the Democrates have even a shred of decency they should support this man. We don't need a second act for the despictable Bill and Hillary joke. The garbage they have is enough to overload a land fill.

Answer 1

What about Senator David Vitter, he still has his job. To the Republicans it is their hatred of gays, not sin or sex.

You can count on the Democratic Party to pick the worst possible candidate like they did in 2004. I don't know who that is, maybe it is Hillary.

But our problems are alot greater than bickering over which Democrat is going to lead in the repair of our Constitution and Democracy.

Answer 2

Arch Conservative, and genuine Catholic Pat Buchanan has written a good column on this. He says the Idaho newspaper spent months interviewing 300 people who knew Craig. And the only hint of homosexuality they could find were two men's room incidents. He says it's likely Craig is a man who's kept his impulses under control most of his life and this should be viewed as a sin, something that he should be forgiven for.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html

That's basically the approach Dems took toward Clinton, although they were very disappointed he fell into Ken Starr's trap. (I think it's possible Craig fell into the newspaper's trap, in a way very similar to the the Lewinsky affair.)

The special prosecutor's investigation, by the way, did not have to cost the taxpayer $40-48 million. It was started by the Republicans to look into the Clinton's passive investments in Whitewater, and continued for several years until they found SOMETHING..

Answer 3

Perhaps the Democrats stood behind Clinton, was that they needed him. The Craig incident is just another excuse for the extreme conservatives to rid themselves of those that they want to get rid of. By the way, there was no Democrat asking for Craig or Foley to resign.

Answer 4

Republicans could not support Craig, since they are opposed to homosexuality in general.

Democrats supported Clinton, since it was obvious that the GOp effort to drag out the details of his private behavior, which was none of their business, was purely political. They were looking for something to impeach him with BEFORE he had even met Monica, and that's the best they could do.

Clinton did not cost the American people millions-- the Republicans did, by butting in where they shouldn't have. And they distracted us while Al Qaeda was plotting. I say 9/11 was the GOP's fault.

Answer 5

It was a politically motivated impeachment conducted by the republicans that cost the tax payers millions. Republicans have been trying to compare Clinton to Craig all week and there is no comparison.

Answer 6

I don't think it has to do with loyalty. Republicans tend to clean house. Democrats keep the rotten eggs in the basket (Congressman Jefferson, Senator Kennedy, etc.).

Answer 7

The simple truth is the Democrats protect their own, no matter how bad the conduct, and Republicans don't. You are 100% correct.

Answer 8

One is a Senator the other a President. Also Clinton was impeached just not removed by congress.

Answer 9

It's called Party Loyalty. The Repub's don't understand that.

Answer 10

thats a rant, not a question.