Republicans Against The Tea Party: Part Deux

[FrogFan]

I'm mostly a lurker here, but thought I'd contribute to this thread. I saw the reference to Cornyn's (or his PAC's) contribution to Cochran's race-baiting and, recalling his shunning of Cruz awhile back, I wrote him a note through his Senate website. (I also wrote to him about his shunning of Cruz.) This time, I told him that I was disappointed in his support for Cochran, particularly his support of race-baiting and pork barrel politics, and offered that such tactics did not represent true conservative values. For what it's worth, here is his response, which I did not find very satisfying:

"Dear Mr. :

Thank you for contacting me regarding current political affairs. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

Although Senate ethics standards preclude me from using taxpayer-funded resources to comment on political campaign issues, I appreciate your interest in current affairs. I welcome the input of citizens who take seriously their civic responsibilities.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

[mojo84]

Here's the question you need to ask yourself. Why should sitting Senators take a position in a primary race? Shouldn't they let the Republican voters of that state decide who they want to represent them? And why is it OK for US Senators to pay for race-baiting ads to defeat an incumbent's challenger?

A completely different discussion. I don't agree with the combined effort to beat the tea party candidate. I think all those that participated should be held accountable. I also do not believe it's appropriate or spin things to further villify someone just because one doesn't agree with them.

You need to read in complete sentences. Again, the article says a PAC that supported Cornyn gave the money. It does not say Cornyn gave the money. The articles are written in a way to give the impression Cornyn gave the money but I chose not to fall for that tactic.

[Right2Carry]

So you are OK with your disdain clouding your judgment? Like I said, the support and data provided does not support your assertion that the money came from Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC". Him being a " rino" doesn't prove your point either.bi wasn't looking for "loopholes" was just trying to verify what the article and you were saying and I couldn't.

I don't think you can prove it was Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC" because if you could, you would have.


Hopefully others don't just assume what they read on the interwebs as being true.

Actually it looks like you can't prove it didn't come from Cornyn or his PAC. The article stands on its own until you can prove otherwise.

So you beat your wife until you can prove otherwise? That's an absurd statement. Does he also have to prove that the moon landings were real because I saw an article on the internet the other day that swore they were fake.

What is absurd is that you can't connect the dots.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So you are OK with your disdain clouding your judgment? Like I said, the support and data provided does not support your assertion that the money came from Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC". Him being a " rino" doesn't prove your point either.bi wasn't looking for "loopholes" was just trying to verify what the article and you were saying and I couldn't.

I don't think you can prove it was Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC" because if you could, you would have.


Hopefully others don't just assume what they read on the interwebs as being true.

Actually it looks like you can't prove it didn't come from Cornyn or his PAC. The article stands on its own until you can prove otherwise.

So you beat your wife until you can prove otherwise? That's an absurd statement. Does he also have to prove that the moon landings were real because I saw an article on the internet the other day that swore they were fake.

Yes it is!! How about I write an article about all Tea Party candidates and supporters having ties to the Mexican drug cartels. Does that article stand on its own until you prove otherwise?

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

So you are OK with your disdain clouding your judgment? Like I said, the support and data provided does not support your assertion that the money came from Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC". Him being a " rino" doesn't prove your point either.bi wasn't looking for "loopholes" was just trying to verify what the article and you were saying and I couldn't.

I don't think you can prove it was Cornyn or "Cornyn's PAC" because if you could, you would have.


Hopefully others don't just assume what they read on the interwebs as being true.

Actually it looks like you can't prove it didn't come from Cornyn or his PAC. The article stands on its own until you can prove otherwise.

So you beat your wife until you can prove otherwise? That's an absurd statement. Does he also have to prove that the moon landings were real because I saw an article on the internet the other day that swore they were fake.

Yes it is!! How about I write an article about all Tea Party candidates and supporters having ties to the Mexican drug cartels. Does that article stand on its own until you prove otherwise?

Chas.

Maybe we are all guilty until proven innoncent. That seems to be what you are stating except you are implying the article is false until proven true. The money trail leads to a superpac run by a well known Cornyn associate. It's not hard to connect the dots.

[SC1903A3]

Concerning the Super PAC/Cornyn issue, do not attach the sins of the brother. Even though the Super PAC has a close association to Cornyn, I'm not going to condemn him until someone can show a direct connection. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Until then, even though I disagree with him on some issues he still has my support.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This thread was started in the Legislative - Federal section, even though it has nothing to do with legislation. I tried to find a place where it would fit, but it doesn't. It's clearly political, so I moved it to the Political section, but it doesn't work here either. Due to people wanting to post every type of hot button political subject matter imaginable, the rule was changed such that As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

This thread is locked.

Chas.