GEPHARDT RECEIVED TWO UNSECURED LOANS FROM MCAULIFFE BANK

We need to elect angry people; people who will over turn tables and scream enough is enough. We need to elect people with integrity and courage.

Ahh - we are definitely on the same page. We will never arrest the moral slide until we get an angry and get in people's faces so they know we are watching and will take action. I'm with you - I've not just educated myself on the process, but taken to educating others and challenging the politicians where ever and whenever I can. Hopefully others will also take up the call so they will hear from us.

Was it not also Edmund Burke that said All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing?

There has been a lot of mention on this thread that only FOX News is reporting this, however, a quick Google seach shows an article in Washington Times. This is part of an article from the Washington Times on July 12.

GOP deflects blame for scandals By Dave Boyer and Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In attacking Mr. Gephardt, House Republicans also pointed to his 1988 presidential campaign, during which he received questionable loans totaling $1.4 million, according to newspaper accounts at the time. The New York Times reported then that the loans were unsecured. But Terry McAuliffe, who was chairman of the Federal City National Bank that gave some of the loans and was the finance director of Mr. Gephardt's campaign, defended the loans and accused rival campaigns of trying to discredit Mr. Gephardt. Mr. McAuliffe is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

This article contained charges being levelled at Democrats BY REPUBLICANS!

Also, on CBSNEWS.COM July 12 there is an article citing many Democrats shady dealings,

CBS) Elizabeth Fulk of the CBS News Political Unit reports the Democrats had better not get too giddy about the corporate corruption scandal.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/12/politics/main515049.shtml

This CBS report cites many Democrats with problems.

From what I can understand it's against campaign finance rules. Bush did nothing wrong when he sold his stock, he filed the proper and most important paper work on the day of the sale, the other, due later, is redundent, and does not hold the importance of the one he filed on the day of his stock sale.

I doubt he even does his own bookwork and has an accountant do it. I can testify that accountants can mess up so badly that it leaves you messed up nine ways from Sunday. But not filing the second report was so minor for the demoncrats to jump on, it makes them look rediculous, trying to create smoke where there is no fire. But they don't mind looking rediculous to the educated, their audiance is high school drop outs. Now Gepharts actions are clearly unethical and crooked if he broke campaign finance laws.

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.