Posted on 01/29/2006 5:01:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
Correct. I like that phrase "Conjunction Injunction Party."
Why are they polling adults and not registered or likely voters all of a sudden?
Good. Thanks!
As usual, I will be unable to watch. I can only see what is posted here. Howard Dean makes for great copy-a classic example of how NOT to run a political party. Every morning he appears on these shows another republican voter is born. Im surprised to see W on CBS, It would be nice to see him bring up Rather/Mapes/Burkett. But having too much class, he wont..
I believe Frist has a good heart, and wants to do the right thing, but he just needs a push by the Republican voters to do it. He's someone who needs a big push! LOL
Your understanding of the Abramoff thing is pretty much my take as well...
of course we really don't know the facts yet...and neither does HOWARD!!!
You got it mostly right. Save the above statement.
It is NOT illegal for lobbyists to make political contributions on behalf of their clients to a Political Action Committee. The mere act of doing that is NOT a bribe.
The nuance here is IF a direct political act follows such a contribution, THEN it is a bribe.
This is very difficult to prove and seldom is. Lobbyists represent special interests. The notion is that those special interests represent people who will benefit if a certain person/political party is in power. Social activists, for example, benefit when Dems are in power. Thus they contribute to political action committees to this end. This is NOT a bribe but merely American politics in action.
The fine line between politics as usual and outright bribery is fuzzy and unclear. It's the nature of the beast.
Take this to the bank, the American people aren't paying that much attention to Abramoff and they will NEVER buy that only one political party is guilty.
Abramoff is an inside-the-beltway flap. Americans are practical and busy carrying this country on their backs. They are not going to get all hysterical over a little political chicanery.
Although, make no mistake, Abramoff is a sleaze of the highest order, the politicos who associated with him should have known better. This guy is knee deep in crap, up to and possibly including complicity in a murder.
That is why, when Palestinians were asked to vote, they voted against Fatah. No one predicted the level of "anyone but Fatah" voters. Hamas did not plan to be the government. They prefer to lurk, criticize and sabotage. Now they have the spotlight, and it will be very interesting to watch it play out!
|
Cycle
|
Total
|
Dems
|
Repubs
|
Abramoff
Only |
Indian Tribes
Only† |
SunCruz
Casinos Only |
|
2000
|
$393,763
|
$73,000
|
$319,763
|
$56,513
|
$309,500
|
$17,500
|
|
2002
|
$1,804,220
|
$427,730
|
$1,376,490
|
$81,740
|
$1,625,480
|
$25,500
|
|
2004
|
$1,499,438
|
$622,603
|
$876,835
|
$68,000
|
$1,347,588
|
$0
|
|
2006
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
$2,500
|
$0
|
|
Grand Total
|
$3,699,921
|
$1,123,333
|
$2,575,588
|
$206,253
|
$3,285,068
|
$43,000
|
*Data for the current election cycle were released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on October 31, 2005. Figures include contributions to federal candidates, PACs and party committees.
†Tribal clients of Jack Abramoff's firm include Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Tigua Indian Reservation.
The MSM uses/makes polls to make 'news'.
Polls are not 'news', but the MSM makes the results 'news'. What better way to manipulate 'news'? If the results are way off expectations, they can be shredded. Otherwise, they can be used to support the agenda of the MSM--to make headlines.
The US is already paying money to the UN for Palestine. It's been billions of dollars. Where is it? Frankly, we should never have continued to fund the UN relief program as it was a couple of years ago. The UN is paying for housing, food and unemployment to the Palestinians.
She said that most people say "Well, I'm not talking to Al Queda so I have nothing to be worried about"..
She said that the public supports spying on terrorists because they "don't understand" the implications of the program and it's effects on our privacy.
Barf!
There's no political reason not to do it.
IIRC, Russert asked LITERALLY that question, last week. I don't recall who he asked it of, but I got a kick out of it's strength:
"Do you think President Bush will be known as one of the worst Presidents?" or something like that.
Sure go ahead, MNJ will be doing the honors today and since he is working as am I check with him on when he will be posting.
And we ALL know why: The clinton administration and their apologists immunized the public against political chicanery hysteria. They thought it was great at the time, now they couldn't get a rise out of the public if they tried!
There ought to be a law against former President's like Carter getting stuck on stupid
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.