"Hey, Harry, why don't you come clean, and acknowledge the costs of Democrat corruption."
It keeps people like abramoff in the white house?
Posted by: shortz at January 24, 2006 10:48 PM
Two words: Jack Abramoff
He's a Republican. This scandal is Republican. Since 1994 you all have talked about honesty and accountabilty, but now that your politicians are blatantly corrupt you stay with them.
Blind loyalty is easier then thinking for you Republicans isn't it?
Posted by: DAV at January 24, 2006 10:53 PM
Posted by:
Matt M. at January 24, 2006 11:04 PM
Somehow, citing your own website just doesn't get the point across that this isn't just your opinion...
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at January 24, 2006 11:08 PM
Now hold on. It is NOT a bipartison scandal.
Your guys have been in power since 1994 and have been the ones to control the legislation. Sorry, but Jack Abramoff is also former Head of the National College Republicans, and he gave ONLY to Repubs.
Republicans pooped in their own bed and now they get to sleep in it.
Posted by: DAV at January 24, 2006 11:25 PM
Georgia, Come debate with me on my blog then.
I don't mind a good scrap. Also the chance to ween you off that Republican koolaid you've been drinking would be wonderful. Seriously, come on by.
I'll put the kettle on
Posted by: DAV at January 24, 2006 11:28 PM
Now hold on. It is NOT a bipartison scandal.
Yes, it is. Haven't you been paying attention?
Posted by:
Matt M. at January 25, 2006 12:17 AM
"Abramoff is a Republican. But, he was under investigation for his lobbying practices, and his lobbying was bipartisan..."
He's credited with taking tribes that were democrat contributors into the GOP fold. And this makes his lobbying 'bipartisan.'
But the scandal isn't all his lobbying. Just the illegal parts.
Posted by: shortz at January 25, 2006 12:47 AM
Over the years Harry Reid, both when he was in the House and the Senate, has voted for pro-life legislation and that has cost him the support of national-level feminist organizations like NOW, although the local Southern Nevada NOW did reluctantly support him in the last election. How he will vote on Alito will probably take into account more issues than just the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, but I thought you should know a little more about him than the usual media hype from a long term Nevadan.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at January 25, 2006 02:56 AM
They don't call him Dirty Harry for nothing!
Posted by: semby at January 25, 2006 07:27 AM
Reid's email address is...http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
Posted by: semby at January 25, 2006 07:31 AM
This is a Republican scandal. Time to start being loyal to your country rather than your party. Blind faith is what's ruining our country.
Posted by: lovedaright at January 25, 2006 09:28 AM
Bullcrap, Meyer. Harry Reid will vote against Alito, and you know it.
Posted by: Bret Helm at January 25, 2006 09:31 AM
corruption in Washington, tell it's not so!can anyone tell me when there were no lobbyist in Washington?the thing that frost me is the Dems act like they never to ANY money through Abramoff or his connections.WHAT BS!
there aren't too many politicians that are going to turn down campain money or perks.
Posted by: jjm at January 25, 2006 01:00 PM
Posted by: Bret Helm at January 25, 2006 02:06 PM
Of course Reid will vote against Judge Alito, everyone on the "other side" will. They have to, they are beholden to the looney left, which will insure that they will NEVER again win another national election. They are afraid to tell the country what they actually stand for. Begalla and Carville are wrong. It is not about anatomy, it is about ideas and their ideas reach back to the "New deal". And no one believes in that utopian vision any more. ;)
Posted by: hammerhead at January 25, 2006 05:02 PM
So you want to make this a bipartisan scandal?
As David Brooks commented in his column on the Abramoff cesspool of scandals, the Republicans are trying to make this a bipartisan issue by, in effect saying, "Look! The Democrats are involved in this, too. They're scumbags just like us!"
It won't work.
This is a Republican Scandal. It's all yours.
Posted by:
Shaw Kenawe at January 25, 2006 05:44 PM
But the scandal isn't all his lobbying. Just the illegal parts.
Posted by: shortz at January 25, 2006 12:47 AM
Precisely why it can not be label a republican or demorat scandal! If we can say anything right now, based on what we know, it is an Abramoff scandal and anyone involved with the illegal aspect(demorat & republican) should and hopefully will be prosecuted!
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at January 25, 2006 07:22 PM
On March 13, 2003, Senator Harry Reid voted for S.3 (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003), one of the 64 "yea" votes that got the bill passed. If you want to dispute the record, it's your right; but if objective history means nothing then it's pointless to argue.
There are other issues that will come before the Supreme Court; one of them will likely be the issue of Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear dump near Las Vegas, and that has put the conservative ranchers and the liberal environmentalists on the same side, oddly enough. When a candidate in 2000, Bush said he would oppose Yucca; but as President, he has been pushing for it. When Clinton was in office, he opposed it. In the first 2 years of the Bush adminstration, there was a Democratic Senate which wasn't going to allow it; but now with both Houses firmly in GOP hands, the anti-Yucca movement has been looking to the courts as a last resource.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at January 25, 2006 08:01 PM
you Repubs sure spend a lot of time making up excuses for corruption and incompetance.
Ever think maybe you've been wrong in voting for Republicans all this time?
Posted by: DAV at January 25, 2006 09:03 PM
"Precisely why it can not be label a republican or demorat scandal! If we can say anything right now, based on what we know, it is an Abramoff scandal and anyone involved with the illegal aspect(demorat & republican) should and hopefully will be prosecuted!"
What we can say now is that the illegal aspect is republican.
Posted by: shortz at January 26, 2006 12:36 AM
"Hey, Harry, why don't you come clean, and acknowledge the costs of Democrat corruption."
It keeps people like abramoff in the white house?
Two words: Jack Abramoff
He's a Republican. This scandal is Republican. Since 1994 you all have talked about honesty and accountabilty, but now that your politicians are blatantly corrupt you stay with them.
Blind loyalty is easier then thinking for you Republicans isn't it?
DAV,
Abramoff is a Republican. But, he was under investigation for his lobbying practices, and his lobbying was bipartisan...
Somehow, citing your own website just doesn't get the point across that this isn't just your opinion...
Now hold on. It is NOT a bipartison scandal.
Your guys have been in power since 1994 and have been the ones to control the legislation. Sorry, but Jack Abramoff is also former Head of the National College Republicans, and he gave ONLY to Repubs.
Republicans pooped in their own bed and now they get to sleep in it.
Georgia, Come debate with me on my blog then.
I don't mind a good scrap. Also the chance to ween you off that Republican koolaid you've been drinking would be wonderful. Seriously, come on by.
I'll put the kettle on
Now hold on. It is NOT a bipartison scandal.
Yes, it is. Haven't you been paying attention?
"Abramoff is a Republican. But, he was under investigation for his lobbying practices, and his lobbying was bipartisan..."
He's credited with taking tribes that were democrat contributors into the GOP fold. And this makes his lobbying 'bipartisan.'
But the scandal isn't all his lobbying. Just the illegal parts.
Over the years Harry Reid, both when he was in the House and the Senate, has voted for pro-life legislation and that has cost him the support of national-level feminist organizations like NOW, although the local Southern Nevada NOW did reluctantly support him in the last election. How he will vote on Alito will probably take into account more issues than just the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, but I thought you should know a little more about him than the usual media hype from a long term Nevadan.
They don't call him Dirty Harry for nothing!
Reid's email address is...http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
This is a Republican scandal. Time to start being loyal to your country rather than your party. Blind faith is what's ruining our country.
Bullcrap, Meyer. Harry Reid will vote against Alito, and you know it.
corruption in Washington, tell it's not so!can anyone tell me when there were no lobbyist in Washington?the thing that frost me is the Dems act like they never to ANY money through Abramoff or his connections.WHAT BS!
there aren't too many politicians that are going to turn down campain money or perks.
This is a Republican scandal.
Time to start being loyal to your country rather than your party.
Blind faith is what's ruining our country.
LOL!!!
Of course Reid will vote against Judge Alito, everyone on the "other side" will. They have to, they are beholden to the looney left, which will insure that they will NEVER again win another national election. They are afraid to tell the country what they actually stand for. Begalla and Carville are wrong. It is not about anatomy, it is about ideas and their ideas reach back to the "New deal". And no one believes in that utopian vision any more. ;)
So you want to make this a bipartisan scandal?
As David Brooks commented in his column on the Abramoff cesspool of scandals, the Republicans are trying to make this a bipartisan issue by, in effect saying, "Look! The Democrats are involved in this, too. They're scumbags just like us!"
It won't work.
This is a Republican Scandal. It's all yours.
But the scandal isn't all his lobbying. Just the illegal parts.
Posted by: shortz at January 25, 2006 12:47 AM
Precisely why it can not be label a republican or demorat scandal! If we can say anything right now, based on what we know, it is an Abramoff scandal and anyone involved with the illegal aspect(demorat & republican) should and hopefully will be prosecuted!
On March 13, 2003, Senator Harry Reid voted for S.3 (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003), one of the 64 "yea" votes that got the bill passed. If you want to dispute the record, it's your right; but if objective history means nothing then it's pointless to argue.
There are other issues that will come before the Supreme Court; one of them will likely be the issue of Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear dump near Las Vegas, and that has put the conservative ranchers and the liberal environmentalists on the same side, oddly enough. When a candidate in 2000, Bush said he would oppose Yucca; but as President, he has been pushing for it. When Clinton was in office, he opposed it. In the first 2 years of the Bush adminstration, there was a Democratic Senate which wasn't going to allow it; but now with both Houses firmly in GOP hands, the anti-Yucca movement has been looking to the courts as a last resource.
you Repubs sure spend a lot of time making up excuses for corruption and incompetance.
Ever think maybe you've been wrong in voting for Republicans all this time?
"Precisely why it can not be label a republican or demorat scandal! If we can say anything right now, based on what we know, it is an Abramoff scandal and anyone involved with the illegal aspect(demorat & republican) should and hopefully will be prosecuted!"
What we can say now is that the illegal aspect is republican.