Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Burner Calls for Hastert's Resignation, and Challenges Reichert to Follow Her Lead

1

Well, if Darcy's hot on it, Dennis Hastert's resignation must be all but inevitable...

Posted by Napoleon XIV | October 3, 2006 3:18 PM
2

Mark Foley's attorney says Foley was molested by a clergyman as a teenager. Gee that explains it.

Posted by Kevin | October 3, 2006 3:20 PM
3

Why, how about that for a slow pitch? Calling for the resignation Hasert is just the quality of issue which could bring the Dems and Repubs together, could show a united front which boils down into "protecting the children". How could a politican pass up the chance to "for the love of God, to protect the children, for they are America's future"? yeah, right, like that is really going to happen.

Posted by Phenics | October 3, 2006 3:33 PM
4

This just shows that Burner's going to spend her time in DC getting embroiled in bullshit, inconsequential partisan sniping instead of representing her constituents. Very disappointing.

Posted by Seth | October 3, 2006 3:48 PM
5

No Seth, it means that as a constituent she is asking her congressman to step up and stop waffling and demand that Hastert take responsibility for his inaction. Reichert voted to make Hastert his party's leader - he should now call for his resignation so that someone not tainted by this can see an investigation through correctly.

And if/when she is in a similar position we would expect her to do the same.

Posted by Daniel K | October 3, 2006 4:26 PM
6

At last, someone is thinking of the children!!!

Posted by Levislade | October 3, 2006 4:27 PM
7

Whereas Reichert is currently sitting around like a dime store mannequin with a nice head of hair and an expensive suit, waiting for his GOP bosses to tell him how to vote.

Posted by wayne | October 3, 2006 4:30 PM
8

What Foley did is clearly illegal. If people knew about it and didn't report him, I assume that's illegal. Why has nobody been arrested?

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder | October 3, 2006 4:42 PM
9

Hey Eli,


Why the censorship on Slog?


I've noticed some comments erased that were here this morning. Who is making the censorship decisions and what are you trying to prevent Slog readers from reading? Just curious.

Posted by Censorship on Slog? | October 3, 2006 4:52 PM
10

The Stranger has the right to remove statements on their blog as they see fit. It is their forum and they have editorial control. It happens to me no matter where I post when I bring up Sandy Hume.

Posted by Lefty | October 3, 2006 5:19 PM
11

Thanks to everyone at The Stranger for practicing some censorship on The Slog. Some people's ideas and comments simply shouldn't be allowed into public discourse. The editors at The Stranger know best which voices should be marginalized and erased.

Posted by Censorship is good | October 3, 2006 6:01 PM
12

Very opportunistic.

Posted by very | October 3, 2006 9:10 PM
13

To stray from the digression of the last few slog entries, I would like to say that Darcy's letter certainly seems trite and opportunistic. The campaign staff who thought it would be a good idea to wade into this muck have become way too cynical. Don't let the corporate populist press set the agenda, set it yourself! You are running for Congress and can point out many faults with both Reichert and his failed policies without thix easy moral-high-ground “save our kids” bullshit.

Posted by Gabe Global | October 3, 2006 11:58 PM
14

She's writing as a constituent and a mother this time. At least THAT's accurate. I guess calling herself a former Microsoft executive went nowhere so now Burner's trying the honesty approach.

Posted by bob | October 4, 2006 1:46 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).