Because they have NO SHAME... just look at the ARROGANCE of the Republicans and how they have played lap dog to Bush.
2007-12-22 01:28:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The least amount of attention drawn to Craig the better. Quite an embarrassment to the party of family values. You know, like Ted Haggert! That stalwart friend of bush. The guy that preached against homosexuality on a very regular basis. Wasn't he the official pastor of the White House or just a regular visitor there? Seriously, congress, dem or rep, do not want that kind of negative publicity. There is NO difference in those money grubbers in congress.
2007-12-22 11:41:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by peepers98 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
They're hoping they don't have to......because after next year they'll need every vote they can get in the senate!Even if its a guy who likes playing footsie in the bathroom!How many republican senators are retiring in the next year?
2007-12-22 10:33:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He still hasn't had his day in court. I am pretty sure you still Innocent until proven guilty. Lets not make a judgment until we know all the facts or we may end up doing another duke lacrosse incident and ruin the lives of Innocent people. Wait for the verdict from a jury of his peers after all the evidence has been given to make a judgment. Not just on what some stupid news reporter says when all he is trying to do is get headlines. Remember the good old days when reporters actually had to have evidence to back up their statements. Sigh....
2007-12-22 09:43:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by phardos 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
The "closet homos" remark was childish and unnecessary.
Craig is still trying to get his original guilty plea thrown out. He's appealing the latest verdict. There is not a lot that the republicans in congress can do about it in the meantime.
2007-12-22 09:26:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Answer: Like the sterling example the "light in the loafers" liberal democrats set when Stubbs took a 17 Y/O page on a junket to France as his prurient toy...Or when Barney (sounds like steam escaping) Franks ran under age males in a prostitution ring for well heeled Democrats out of his Georgetown home...
The Senate Democrat beacons, both from Massachusetts, One a Murderer, the other admitted, before a Senate committee (after receiving immunity protection) to being a War Criminal...
I know you would like to shout out so the world could hear you but apparently you cannot get above the pond scum separating you from air and the outside world.
2007-12-22 09:45:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by trumain 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
Why didn't democrats try to Remove Ted Kennedy from the Senate after he KILLED someone from irresponsible drunken driving. Even then autopsy reports showed that the wreck didn't kill her, she died from drowning in the car that HE escaped from. He had enough time to run from the police, but he couldn't try to rescue her?
Did Larry Craig KILL anyone?
2007-12-22 11:48:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Voice of Liberty 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because they can't-a misdemeanor does not prevent one from sitting in the Senate. It's up to Craig's constituents to decide come election time. Apparently he has done a lot for his state, so who knows..they may reelect him.
2007-12-22 09:26:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by michinoku2001 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Double-negative ~ what a genius. You don't know very much about how our government works, do you? They couldn't remove him over a misdemeanor conviction if they wanted to, and the Democrats are the only ones making a big stink over it (as usual). Stop smoking pot and go back to school, fool.
2007-12-22 09:37:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by That's a Stupid Question 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
They are hanging back and seeing if they can still get any political mileage out of him before they throw him to the jackals.
2007-12-22 09:30:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋