Harry Reid

If the Democrats gain control of Congress, Harry Reid's shenanigans will come under the microscope. Don't worry.

robeiae said:

If the Democrats gain control of Congress, Harry Reid's shenanigans will come under the microscope. Don't worry.

Click to expand...

You know, something cynical in me says, "no, that won't happen."

What! Mr. "Republican culture of corruption" Harry did something illegal? That's odd, I read four newspapers and watch and listen to the news and I haven't heard anything about it.

Gary said:

What! Mr. "Republican culture of corruption" Harry did something illegal? That's odd, I read four newspapers and watch and listen to the news and I haven't heard anything about it.

Click to expand...

He also received (I think) $45,000 from Jack Abramoff, but that came out some time ago and I haven't heard much about it since.

I have a hunch there are many more skeletons in Reid's closet, and I hope every one of them is exposed.

If Reid's hands are dirty, he deserves whatever he gets for that. Likewise William Jefferson (who I have little doubt about). It is interesting that in our recent history, when the news about Jefferson came to light, Democrats immediately removed him from whatever committee leadership posts he held, even though he hasn't yet been indicted. When Tom Delay was indicted, the response of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives was to change their own party rules to permit him to keep his leadership post. Only after public outcry did they reverse that decision.

But, I must say, with this Mark Foley flap, there are signs that some House Republicans are beginning to get it. Others will likely get it in the upcoming election, by all indications.

caw.

billythrilly7th said:

You worried about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? This woman will control the agenda.

Voting: A few of her just awful votes....there are wayyy to many to list...feel free to peruse...

Click to expand...

Good - someone who votes the way *I* would!

I know sh1t all about American politics. But it seems to me that people are donating because they agree with the policies and perhaps agree that those who actively work to promote those policies rather than just write a check deserve a Christmas bonus which shouldn't have to come out of the pocket of the candidate who might not actually have a rich daddy?

It might be illegal. I don't know. I'll take Billy's word for it.

English Dave said:

I'll take Billy's word for it.

Click to expand...

Uh . . . uh . . . oh, never mind.

caw

English Dave said:

I know sh1t all about American politics. But it seems to me that people are donating because they agree with the policies and perhaps agree that those who actively work to promote those policies rather than just write a check deserve a Christmas bonus which shouldn't have to come out of the pocket of the candidate who might not actually have a rich daddy?

It might be illegal. I don't know. I'll take Billy's word for it.

Click to expand...

It's not only illegal ED, it's unethical as well. He's paying bonuses to domestic staff so they will continue to kiss his butt the following year.

Okay, now I want to know how much slumming at the Ritz-Carlton costs Reid every year...

blacbird said:

But, I must say, with this Mark Foley flap, there are signs that some House Republicans are beginning to get it. Others will likely get it in the upcoming election, by all indications.

Click to expand...

Obviously, they didn't "get it" from watching how the Dems delt with Gerry Studds, now did they?

SC Harrison said:

It's not only illegal ED, it's unethical as well. He's paying bonuses to domestic staff so they will continue to kiss his butt the following year.

Okay, now I want to know how much slumming at the Ritz-Carlton costs .

Click to expand...

That's the clincher. He's off my Christmas card list.

robeiae said:

Obviously, they didn't "get it" from watching how the Dems delt with Gerry Studds, now did they?

Click to expand...

Nope. I ain't about to claim universal high ground on the part of Democrats, who've had their share of shameful moments. But over the past couple of years, there's been a decided imbalance of sleaze.

Perhaps the upcoming election can bring the yin-yang back into more even proportion.

caw.

At least they got a Christmas Bonus that they might have thought was deserved for their efforts rather than their connections?

blacbird said:

Nope. I ain't about to claim universal high ground on the part of Democrats, who've had their share of shameful moments. But over the past couple of years, there's been a decided imbalance of sleaze.

Click to expand...

Maybe that "decided imbalance" is merely a result of the current state of affairs, wherein the Republicans have continued to be the party in power, meaning:

1) By defintion, more Republican targets than Democratic targets
2) The media seeks dirt more vigorously with regard to those in power
3) It's nothing but your perception and both parties remain sleazy to pretty much the same degree, as always

Of course, my position could be tested be looking back at history...

robeiae said:

Of course, my position could be tested be looking back at history...

Click to expand...

Go for it. Look at Vietnam and the Kennedy assasination.

robeiae said:

Maybe that "decided imbalance" is merely a result of the current state of affairs, wherein the Republicans have continued to be the party in power:

Click to expand...

True, much as the demographics of vulnerable seats have turned against the Republicans in this election, after running against the Dems in the last couple of off-year elections. That phenomenon is particularly true in the Senate, where only 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs in any particular vote.

But actually I think it's an even simpler matter. These scandal trends have ups and downs and are to some degree self-governing. They're always there, to some basal extent, but when they fester and burst, the worst of them get cleaned up. It's just the Repub turn for some angst right now.

It'll be good for 'em.

caw.

English Dave said:

Go for it. Look at Vietnam and the Kennedy assasination.

Click to expand...

Okay... ... ... ...look at that! I'm right!

robeiae said:

Okay... ... ... ...look at that! I'm right!

Click to expand...

I think that democrats, real democrats not the polarised version, tend towards real democracy.

But they can be Deer in headlights.

English Dave said:

I think that democrats, real democrats not the polarised version, tend towards real democracy.

Click to expand...

Like the ones who led us into Vietnam...you're ignoring your own examples. And small 'r' republicans forged the ideological foundations of this country, not small 'd' democrats.

robeiae said:

Like the ones who led us into Vietnam...you're ignoring your own examples. And small 'r' republicans forged the ideological foundations of this country, not small 'd' democrats.

Click to expand...

Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?

And as for making a country wasn't that done by people with great ideals rather than the dogmatic politicos who form the refuse of that ideal?

English Dave said:

Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?

Click to expand...

No. It was LBJ--an escalation of something started by JFK...

And as for making a country wasn't that done by people with great ideals rather than the dogmatic politicos who form the refuse of that ideal?

Click to expand...

Yes, but the politicos are called Democrats and Republicans; the idealists were republicans, not democrats...

English Dave said:

Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?

Click to expand...

No. The very first military advisers went there under Eisenhower. Kennedy increased them, but it was Johnson, following what we now know to be the largely fictitious "Tonkin Gulf Incident", who really escalated the thing. Nixon prolonged it. None of 'em get gold stars about this one.

caw.