« CHAIRMAN SUTTON: “WALZ VOTES FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN ENERGY TAX” | Home | NSRC RELEASES WEBVIDEO “60″ »
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA STATEMENT ON FRANKEN SWEARING IN
By Ryan Flynn | July 7, 2009
Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton today issued the following statement regarding in the swearing in of Al Franken.
“Al Franken has the opportunity to erase the asterisk by his name by standing up for hard working Minnesotans against the liberal big spenders in Washington who are leaving future generations with crippling debt. At a time of great economic anxiety, we hope Al Franken will oppose future tax and spending increases and refuse to march in lockstep with those who continue to push us towards socialism.”
###
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 25 Comments »
25 Responses to “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA STATEMENT ON FRANKEN SWEARING IN”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Fat Tony got it all wrong.
It was hard working Minnesotans that not only sent him to Washington but, the other liberal Senator, the liberal five of the eight House members there too, voted in a vast liberal majority in the state house and overwhelmingly for this liberal President. Its not a dirty word Wingers.
We know exactly what we were voting for and that’s the Employee Free Choice Act, Health Care for all, Climate and Clean Energy legislation, and getting us out of Iraq. You know government using OUR money to invest in its people again.
Look through your own archives, you screamed very loud about these policies that were on the campaign trail. Our candidates still won so, don’t be surprised when they act on the promises, and don’t act like you have a say in this either. You don’t. Your policies failed this country and state.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:29 PM
“OUR money”. That says it all. People like DJZ believe that your money is their money. Socialism exposed by DJZ and his foolish comments.
People are turning on the Democrat Socialist Party. They see the extemes that they are going to and are becoming concerned about the excessive spending, the over reaching, and the contempt the Democrats have for ordinary Americans.
Vote Republican in 2010. America is counting on you.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:57 PM
2010, speaking of turing on Democrats Socialists, have you seen Oboy’s latest ratings? They’re down in the sewer headed toward the Potomac.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
July 7th, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Does Sutton realize that if Coleman had been sworn in, he would have the same asterisk behind his name?
July 7th, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Chile, your definition of “sewer” is a bit off. But that should not surprise anyone. Since you think your s**t doesn’t stink anyway, I guess you are an expert as to what qualifies as being in the sewer.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:12 PM
It’s really sad that President Obama is turning out to be a hugh failure at the time the country needed someone capable in ofice. He came into office promising to cleam up the mess created by his Congress over the past 2.5 years but instead he has followed their lead and is driving the economy into the ground.
Hell, even Colin Powell is expressing concern about the Obama administration. If only someone with real life experience had been elected instead of a community organizer.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
AC, I understand Oboy’s negative numbers are hard for you to accept, but the trend is pretty obvious.
At one point do you think Obama will think war isn’t such a bad thing, and shoot off a few missiles pretending as if he gives a damn about national security?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:18 PM
What’s a hugh failure?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:18 PM
How do you cleam up a mess?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Why are you guys so convinced that war is a good thing? Seriously.
Unless there is a war of choice going on, you guys get all nervous and can’t sleep.
President Obama will use missiles to defend this country only as a last resort. That is a good thing that most Americans would agree with.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Liberal danbrome, how many time today have you responded today with a remark about someones spelling error.
“What’s a hugh failure?”
“How do you cleam up a mess?”
“Who is Read?â€
Do you have any thing of substance to add? If your only purpose here is to be the spelling and grammar nanny then you really add nothing to the conversation.
“War of choice.” All wars are by choice. We either choose to engage or not to engage.
“President Obama will use missiles to defend this country only as a last resort.
Who defines last resort? For Oboy the last resort will be his dismal approval ratings.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:06 AM
brone,
What makes you think that sucking up to dictators and state sponsors of terrorism is a good idea? I’m sickened that Hillary Clinton is going to be meeting with the ousted President of Honduras in Washington, D.C. this week. This man was a puppet of Hugo Chavez and he was ousted by the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras because he wanted to claim unlimited terms in office which is in opposition to his country’s constitution. He is supported by both Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers (and now President Obama and Hillary Clinton).
I’m sickened that we are recognizing the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran and not standing with the hundreds of thousands who are marching in the streets (against the threat of force from the Mullahs) for their freedom.
And I’m sickened that our President palled around with Ortega and Chavez while weakening our ties with allies like Great Britian, Germany and Israel.
Is war the best or first answer? No, and even President Bush will tell you that. But neither is peace at any price. It’s a shame that people like you take the sacrifice of our brave troops for granted when you imply that we would be better off with Saddam in power.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:48 AM
chris..
“It’s a shame that people like you take the sacrifice of our brave troops for granted when you imply that we would be better off with Saddam in power.”
Shutup you blowhard.
We would be better off if W would have set aside his anger at Saddam and focused on capturing the terrorists who attacked us.
Your suggestion that I take the sacrifice of our brave troop for granted has no basis in fact, and frankly shows your partisan ignorance.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:19 AM
brone,
When you call the war a war of choice and say that we’d be better off with Saddam in power, then you are, in fact, taking the sacrifice of our brave troops for granted. You are the ignorant partisan not me.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Chris..
Please cite where danbrome said that “we’d be better off with Saddam in power”.
Are you brain dead?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:06 PM
damnbrone,
Do you even read what you write?
“We would be better off if W would have set aside his anger at Saddam and focused on capturing the terrorists who attacked us. ”
That’s where you said we’d be better off with Saddam in power and you know it. Damnbrone is a meathead.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
P.S. dambrone,
Chris says dambrone is a meathead. And what Chris says, Chris means. So don’t forget it — Chris says so.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
“And I’m sickened that our President palled around with Ortega and Chavez while weakening our ties with allies like Great Britian, Germany and Israel.”
–
The President is more popular in each of those countries, than the leaders of those country. He you forgotten? He’s a rock star in Europe.
He accomplished more than expected and predicted in every single country. So Germany is a little pissy because we want to look out for our American industries over the Germans? Let’s see Angela Merkel get 200,000 people to show up to hear her talk, like they did for Obama.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq weakened our relationship with Europe. Obama has opened dialogue across the globe. That’s better for America.
With Iran, you’re dead drunk if you don’t think we’re operating every angle behind the scenes to have that retard Supreme Leader removed. You know who runs Iran, its not the President. With our history of installing and supporting a couple of brutal dictators, its best to play low key and move the pieces behind the scene. They’ve been our suckers three other times. Including after 9/11 when we were given intelligence from the Iranians on Bin Laden and Iraq. Then George the Fuck Up, puts out the Axis of Evil speech and hurled the U.S. in a less safe era.
You don’t understand what’s going on because foreign policy is not supposed to be as simple as the back of a cereal box.
Sit back and learn.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:39 PM
DJZ,
Give me a break. The world isn’t less safe because Bush called Iran and North Korea evil. The world is less safe because Iran and North Korea ARE evil. We’re in a less safe era because of radical Islamists who are trying to nuke everyone they hate, not because of anything Geroge W. Bush did. Have you forgotten about 9/11? It wasn’t George W. Bush who gave North Korea plutonium — it was Bill Clinton as negotiated by Jimmy Carter. And it wasn’t George W. Bush who installed the Mullahs in Iran, it was Carter’s failure to protect the Shah from the extremists.
Frankly, I don’t give a flying fig how popular our president is around the world. What I do care about is a president who is more interested in protecting America and American interests around the world than someone who is capitulating to every dictator around the world. If you care about freedom and the rule of law, you would condemn your president and secretary of state for meeting with the ousted President of Honduras who is trying to become the next Hugo Chavez. Talk about a f-up!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Chris,
Are you aware of any history? You sound like such a fool right now and you don’t even know it.
Carter did what you say Obama should be doing.
Carter, was very outspoken about the Shah’s brutal government and its human rights record. Carter pressured the Shah to relax restrictions upon freedom of speech and to allow more freedom for political dissidents. Instead of, you know, killing them in cold blood and charging the family of the survivor a fee.
That revolution was fueled with a 1978 New Years Toast in which Carter tore the Shah a new asshole. Angry Iranians rose and used the Shah’s longtime friendship with the United States and the drumming by the president as evidence of our two-faced policies and brought in the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Next came the hostages, then the Iran-Iraq war involvement. Guess where Reagan and Rumsfeild had us? Up the ass of yet another brutal dictator we again supplied arms and WMD. It was Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
See a pattern here? Anything sinking in?
North Korea was nothing before president fuck up put them in the axis. Up until then, we had the UN inspectors running around there, cameras at their major facilities, regular inspections and such. One speech and now we are at defcon 4 or orange alert.
Oh and while Bush was ‘keeping us safe’ two more Asian countries became nuclear powers.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:24 PM
DJZ..
Unfortunately, Chris is not a good listener. In fact, it’s unlikely he even read past the first paragraph of your post.
Don’t forget, it’s ALL ABOUT CHRIS! Other people’s views are of no value in his world.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:26 PM
DJZ,
Wow I’ve seen revisionist history before, but nothing like this. North Korea has been after nuclear weapons for the last 20 years. Clinton gave them the plutonium if they promised not to seek nuclear weapons. What do you think they did the the plutonium?
As for Iran, the Shah was no saint — I agree with you about that. But Iran was a western country. Women were educated, had the freedom to vote, travel and work. They weren’t slaves of men — and they weren’t stoned to death for being raped as they are today. The dissidents that were protesting against the Shah were the radical Shi’ites. It’s amazing that the U.S. was on the side of radical Islam over a regime that supported the U.S. and promoted western culture and education. If Carter hadn’t let the Shah fall, I have no doubt that we would not have been involved with Saddam prior to deposing him. What surprises me is that Jimmy Carter hasn’t gone over to Iran to certify that their elections were fair.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:57 PM
North Korea has been after nuclear weapons for the last 20 years. Clinton gave them the plutonium if they promised not to seek nuclear weapons. What do you think they did the the plutonium?
—
Yes, and we were watching them. Close. The international atomic agency and un inspectors were in North Korea. We had cameras set up at the plutonium facilities. We received regular reports that were checked against intelligence. We had an eye on them. After Bush opened hs yap, they escort (with bullets) the inspectors out, banned the atomic agencies reps and pulled downs the cameras.
Ummmm, you reading the Shah’s public statements from Iran circa 1977?
Who do you think were at the other end of those rubber bullets and tear gas the US shipped regularly to Iran before Carter stopped it? They were killing political dissidents and those who advocated for more democracy and freedom.
Carter, doing exactly what you say Obama should be doing, fumbled the damn ball on that one. The CIA never saw it coming.
Today, Obama is using the delicate intelligence avenues we have to let this thing happen the right way.
For the record, if we had to get into the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was probably the better choice for the short gain.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:48 PM
So DJZ, Clinton gives an evil dictator plutonium creating the need for inspectors to try to catch him making the plutonium into weapons. Said evil dictator kicks out inspectors to facilitate bomb making. How is the the fault of GWB?
DJZ, as far as history goes, you’re a revisionist.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:40 AM
DJZ,
I do agree with some of your comments — particularly about how it was better to be on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
I disagree with you that North Korea was watched closely during the Clinton years and not the Bush years. We placated North Korea, gave them concessions and aid and watched them cheat every agreement they made. You also didn’t see any pictures of Bush officials toasting Kim Jong Il with champagne as Madeleline Albright did. See pictures here:
http://newsbusters.org/node/8314