posted on October 6, 2005 08:45:05 AM new
....a Crime Free Replacement House Speaker
"""DeLay, Blunt, Abramoff Are Becoming Anchors For The House GOP
Submitted by Roy Temple on Fri, 09/09/2005 - 5:22am. GOP Culture of Corruption
News for the scandal-plagued GOP House leadership keeps getting worse and worse--and there's more to come. Yesterday, a Texas grand jury indicted TRMPAC, a PAC founded by Majority Leader Tom DeLay to manipulate the redisctricting process in Texas.
According to the AP:
A Texas grand jury has indicted a political organization formed by Tom DeLay, accusing it of taking illegal corporate money as the House majority leader helped Republicans win control of the Texas Legislature and keep Congress in GOP hands.
Last fall, the grand jury indicted three close associates of the DeLay-Blunt leadership team. One of those men, Jim Ellis, was indicted for money laundering. Ellis, who ran ARMPAC, DeLay's federal political arm, once ran a political laundromat for Roy Blunt called the ROYB Fund.
In 1999 and 2000, when Ellis ran both DeLay's ARMPAC and Blunt's ROYB Fund, ARMPAC made contributions to Blunt's committee totalling $150,000. In return, Blunt made a series of payments to the Alexander Strategy Group (ASG), a firm controlled by former DeLay staffers, that also happened to employ DeLay's wife at the time. Over the course of a two-year period, Blunt's payments to ASG totalled $150,000. For a detailed schedule of the payments, click here.
In the same quarter in 2000 that Blunt received a contribution from DeLay for $100,000, Blunt made a contribution to the mysterious DeLay Foundation for $10,000. Blunt's PAC also paid rent to the U.S. Family Network, yet another DeLay controlled entity.
In fact, ties were so close between the Blunt and DeLay operations, that ARMPAC, ROYB, Alexander Strategy Group--run by former DeLay staffer Ed Buckham, and the U.S. Family Network once all shared the same office space at 132 D St., SE in a DC townhouse owned by Robert Mills, a former DeLay campaign manager.--who ran the U.S. Family Network. They were forced to disperse when DC zoning officials noted that Mills had reported that only 15% of his home would be used for business purposes. (Roll Call, DeLay PAC, Consulting Firm Move Out of House, April 13, 2000. See also, ROYB campaign finance report expenditure for rent to U.S. Family Network at this address.)
Also during Ellis' tenure with ROYB, Blunt accepted a series of contributions from clients of embattled uber-lobbyist and DeLay crony, Jack Abramoff. Blunt accepted contributions from Concorde Garment Manufacturing, a company that ran sweatshops on the Marianas Islands. In March of 2000, 8 major U.S. retailers settled a class action lawsuit for $6.5 million for working conditions in Marianas Island manufacturing facilities, including those of Concorde Manufacturing. Abramoff lobbied on behalf of various Marianas Island interests. (New York Times, 8 Retailers Settle Suit, March 29, 2000)
Blunt also accepted a contribution from Juan C. Franco. Franco was a prominent Puerto Rican businessman whose key goal was Puerto Rican statehood. Franco was also represented by Abramoff. According to a May 7, 2005 National Journal article headlined, Getting in Good With Tom and Christine, Abramoff, Franco, and interests aligned with the Marianas Islands, were also frequent golfers at DeLay's charitable events.
Blunt's ties to Abramoff also apparently rose to the level of personal friendship. Blunt was included on a freebie list at Abramoff's DC restaraunt as a "friend of owner."
Many of these ties remain unexamined by the mainstream press, but as the investigations and legal proceedings against DeLay and Abramoff continue, you can expect more and more sleaze to come to light, which will only deepen the ethical and political hole that DeLay and Blunt are digging for their party.""""
posted on October 8, 2005 06:27:54 PM new The house of liars and greed is falling apart.
There you go outing clinton again.... I gave my liberal neighbors son a book for his birthday. He went crazy trying to find where to put the batteries.
posted on October 9, 2005 03:34:07 AM new
Poor Bear can't get out of the past. Hey Bear this is the month of October in the year 2005. Bill Clinton hasn't been President for 5 years. Do ya get it now or are you still lost in the past?
For the last 5 years the Majority of Americans has been suffering under the laws the Bush house of Liars and Greed have made and are still making.
Hey Bear, do you know that a recent I.R.S. study shows that now only the top 1% of the riches Americans have increased their personal wealth. The other 99% of American have not increased their personal wealth and most have gone backwards.
Bear do you know that under the Bush White House of Liars and Greed. Alone with his CON-servative law makers in both houses 5 million more Americans are in poverty.
Yes Bear you can live in the past if you want. I will keep plugging away to put a stop to the injustice this White House and its CON-servative form of government has brought to the majority of Americans.
The majority of Americans now see its important to put a stop to the liars and greedy CON-servative law makers. The law makers that only cater to the rich and industry in both houses by voting them out of power starting with the 2006 elections.
posted on October 9, 2005 09:33:37 AM new
Bear, what some people like peepa just don't GET, is that both clinton's are in current news reports/articles. They continue to believe it's that we won't get over talking about him/her. They're just in denial to what's actually being brought up for discussion ALL the time in the media.
-------
From NewMax.com today:
4. Report: Bill Clinton Caught Again
Either Bill Clinton is not telling the truth now about the terrorist threat posed by Iraq during his administration - or he fibbed to the American people while he was in the White House.
Clinton recently told his former staffer-turned TV commentator George Stephanopoulos that the U.S. government had "no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
But a recent report in the The Weekly Standard headlined "Clinton Revisionism" unmasks Clinton's flip-flops over the Iraq weapons of mass destruction issue.
For example, during an appearance on "Larry King Live" back in July 2003, the former president said:
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."
In October of that year, six months after the war ended, Clinton discussed Iraq with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.
Barroso said: "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
Last month Clinton discussed the Iraq war with Wolf Blitzer and told him: "I never thought it had much to do with the war on terror."
But in a February 1998 speech warning of an "unholy axis" of terrorists and rogue states, Clinton stated: "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
That summer six senior Clinton officials accused Iraq of providing chemical weapons expertise to al-Qaida in Sudan.
The Clinton administration cited this link to justify the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan supposedly involved in the production of chemical weapons.
The Standard concludes: "Clinton's revisionism is hardly surprising. He has his wife's future in an increasingly anti-war Democratic Party to worry about."
--------------
So, imo, let them all piss and moan about us mentioning the clintons.....we're the ones dealing with the facts.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 9, 2005 11:10:50 AM new
Linda_K and Bear are both living in the past. They still think their CON-servative form of government is working.
Just a few months ago both were applauding their NEOCON form of government. Now both spend all their time defending its mistakes and members under indictment.
The majority of America will send Bush back to his ranch QUACKING LIKE A LAME DUCK AFTER THE 2006 ELECTIONS. YES!!!
posted on October 9, 2005 11:55:43 AM new
peepa - Get informed on why that's MOST likely NOT going to happen.
Republicans stake claim on '06 House
October 8, 2005
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
House Republicans have taken some hits but should still be able to win a majority in 2006 because there just aren't enough opportunities for Democrats, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, the man charged with House Republicans' campaign operation, said yesterday.
"Our game plan worked in 2002 and it worked in 2004, and I intend to do the same plan in 2006, which is build our races from the ground up," said Mr. Reynolds, New York Republican.
Mr. Reynolds dismissed polls that show poor ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress, saying while overall impressions are bad, voters still like their own local representative.
Democrats said their own polling finds different results. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) said polls showing high dissatisfaction with Republicans in general have translated into a lack of support for individual members of Congress. "Those cold Buffalo winters must be really getting to Congressman Reynolds when he starts thinking that the culture of corruption the Republican Party controls is going to help him in the 2006 elections," DCCC spokesman Bill Burton said. "I'm no political scientist, but I know that America thinks we can do better."
Democrats would have to win 15 seats to gain control.
Politicians and observers are wondering whether 2006 could be a repeat of 1994, when Republicans captured a majority for the first time in four decades. But Mr. Reynolds said there aren't enough races to do that.
He said in 1994 there were 106 races that were considered competitive by pundits. This year, political race-watcher Charlie Cook says there are just 27, and race-watcher Stuart Rothenberg says there are 37.
--------
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 10, 2005 04:47:14 AM new
Linda_K
Your problem is you are out of touch and don't get around much. You only get as far away from your computer chair as GOOGLE.
SO FAR I HAVEN'T HEARD CON-SERVATIVE LAW MAKERS TALK ABOUT CUTTING ANY TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH AND INDUSTRY TO HELP PAY FOR HURRICANE DAMAGE.
THAT'S THE CON-SERVATIVE LAW MAKERS MIND SET. THEY BELIEVE ALL AMERICANS SHOULD PAY TODAY AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. YES ALL AMERICANS EXCEPT THE RICH AND INDUSTRIES LIKE OIL COMPANIES.
posted on October 10, 2005 06:43:18 AM new
I usually read a few Republican writers to find out what well informed Republicans are discussing. This question was asked by Stephen Bainbridge, a UCLA corporate law professor and a conservative Republican.
posted on October 10, 2005 06:52:02 AM new
From my link above...
Andrew Sullivan: Is Bush a socialist?He's spending like one
The Sunday Times.
Finally, finally, finally. A few years back, your correspondent noticed something a little odd about George W Bush’s conservatism. If you take Margaret Thatcher’s dictum that a socialist is someone who is very good at spending other people’s money, then President Bush is, er, a socialist.
Sure, he has cut taxes, a not-too-difficult feat when your own party controls both houses of Congress. But spending? You really have to rub your eyes, smack yourself on the forehead and pour yourself a large gin and tonic. The man can’t help himself.
The first excuse was the war. After 9/11 and a wobbly world economy, that was a decent excuse. Nobody doubted that the United States needed to spend money to beef up homeland security, avert deflation, overhaul national preparedness for a disaster, and fight a war on terror. But when Katrina revealed that, after pouring money into both homeland security and Louisiana’s infrastructure, there was still no co-ordinated plan to deal with catastrophe, a few foreheads furrowed.
Then there was the big increase in agricultural subsidies. Then the explosion in pork barrel spending. Then the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson, the Medicare drug benefit. Then a trip to Mars. When you add it all up, you get the simple, devastating fact that Bush, in a mere five years, has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on that debt will soon add up to the cost of two Katrinas a year.
Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility? In a few years, few people will be able to. I used to write sentences that began with the phrase: “Not since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society spending binge. . .” I can’t write that any more. Johnson — the guns and butter president of liberalism’s high-water mark — was actually more fiscally conservative than the current inhabitant of the White House. LBJ boosted domestic discretionary spending in inflationadjusted dollars by a mere 33.4%.
In five years, Bush has increased it 35.1%. And that’s before the costs for Katrina and Rita and the Medicare benefit kick in. Worse, this comes at a time when everyone concedes that we were facing a fiscal crunch before Bush started handing out dollar bills like a drunk at a strip club. With the looming retirement of America’s baby-boomers, the US needed to start saving, not spending; cutting, not expanding its spending habits.
This was one reason I found myself forced to endorse John Kerry last November. He was easily the more fiscally conservative candidate. Under Clinton, the US actually ran a surplus for a while (thanks, in part, to the Gingrich-run Congress). But most conservatives bit their tongues. Bush promised fiscal tightening in his second term and some actually believed him.
They shouldn’t have. When Bush casually dismissed questions about funding the $200 billion Katrina reconstruction with a glib “It’s going to cost what it costs”, steam finally blew out of some loyal Republican ears. When the house majority leader Tom DeLay told the conservative Washington Times that there was no fat left to cut in the budget and that “after 11 years of Republican majority we’ve pared it down pretty good”, a few conservatives lost it.
Here’s the chairman of the American Conservative Union: “Excluding military and homeland security, American taxpayers have witnessed the largest spending increase under any preceding president and Congress since the Great Depression.” That would be correct. When you have doubled spending on education in four years, launched two wars and a new mega-entitlement, that tends to happen.
Here’s Peggy Noonan, about as loyal a Republican as you’ll find, in a Wall Street Journal column last week: “George W Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?”
Here’s Ann Coulter, the Michael Moore of the far right, a pundit whose book on liberalism was titled Treason: “Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals and then some! He said he’d be a ‘compassionate conservative’, which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programmes, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.
“Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programmes, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He’s even sent his own father to socialise with ageing porn star Bill Clinton.” Ouch.
Conservatives have been quietly frustrated with Bush for a long time now. Honest neoconservatives have long privately conceded that the war in Iraq has been grotesquely mishandled. But in deference to their own party, they spent last year arguing that John Kerry didn’t deserve his Vietnam war medals. Social conservatives have just watched as the president’s nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court pronounced that the constitutional right to abortion on demand merited respect as a legal precedent. This hasn’t cheered them up. The nativist right, long enraged by illegal immigration, has been spluttering about foreigners for a while now. But since few want to question the war publicly, oppose the president’s nominees to the court, or lose the Latino vote, the spending issue has become the focus of everyone’s discontent.
All I can say is: about time. I believe in lower taxes. But I also believe in basic fiscal responsibility. If you do not cut spending to align with lower taxes, you are merely borrowing from the next generation. And if a Republican president has legitimised irresponsible spending, what chance is there that a Democrat will get tough?
This may, in fact, be Bush’s real domestic legacy. All a Democratic successor has to do is raise taxes to pay for his splurge, and we will have had the biggest expansion of government power, size and responsibility since the 1930s. What would Reagan say? What would Thatcher? But those glory days are long gone now — and it was a Republican president and Congress that finally buried them.
posted on October 10, 2005 11:25:14 AM new
LOL.....so funny to read helen defending Andrew Sullivan....when in the past she has point out some very rude things about him. Guess if I'm using him as a source...that's so different to her than when she uses his statements.
Typical helen though....no surprise there. Her not so lovely 'double standard'.
--------
And I do have to laugh at this statement:
"This was one reason I found myself forced to endorse John Kerry last November. He was easily the more fiscally conservative candidate."
Sullivan must have been 'high' on 'something when he wrote that. kerry was promising everything to everybody/group and was going to increase funding for all the social programs already established....one's he said this President hadn't given enough funding to.
Then when asked how he was going to pay for it all, some estimates put his 'promises' at $2 trillion dollars, he never could/would answer that question, no matter how many times the press asked it. [chicken]
But near the end of his Presidential campaign, he FINALLY was forced to admit that he probably couldn't come up with ways to pay for all his "campaign promises".
We are so lucky he wasn't elected.....for so many different reasons.
So...that part of helen's article is extremely off base.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 11, 2005 02:16:51 PM new
linda says. "LOL.....so funny to read helen defending Andrew Sullivan....when in the past she has point out some very rude things about him. Guess if I'm using him as a source...that's so different to her than when she uses his statements"
I've been away for just a day and lo and behold I come back to find the usual LIES from LINDA.
I have NEVER said a RUDE word about Andrew Sullivan. In every instance that I mentioned Sullivan's name, I have agreed with his opinion.
Helenjw
posted on August 4, 2003 10:57:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda, The author of this information, Andrew Sullivan, is a conservative but he is in favor of same sex marriages. You will find some information that you are looking for here.
Only that preposterous conclusion would occur to you.
I'm saying that YOU don't have good judgement and that instead of using Sullivan's page to promote your silly attempt to link communism to Kerry via poetry that you could better spend your time learning something by reading Sullivan's highly regarded information on that site about homosexuality. Homosexuality, Here Comes the Groom
That's a topic on which some education might improve your sensitivity and consideration for others.
Helenjw
posted on September 2, 2004 09:11:45 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zell Miller's speech is being described as the most hateful major address delivered at a national-party convention.
Here is a Republicans description...A. Sullivan
"Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift.
"Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats.
"Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude. . . .
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=226821&id=226948
So, linda...When you are not able to post where I made a rude comment about Sullivan we will ALL know that you are a LIAR. Your statement is especially derogatory because by implication, since Sullivan is gay, it leaves the impression that I have said something rude about that. Of course, I have NOT as you know so very well.
posted on October 11, 2005 02:46:06 PM new
ROFLMHO @ you helen. Enjoy your fit?
No I'm not lying. You used his lifestyle as a way to try to discredit something he'd said that I supported. YOU brought it up when it wasn't a topic issue.....just like you sometimes play the race card....making race an issue when it's not.
So have your fit....won't change what I read when you used that to point out his sexuality to me.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 11, 2005 05:42:30 PM new
Pieinthesky, The end of this chat board as we used to know it was brought about by posters who don't play fair.
posted on October 11, 2005 06:17:27 PM new
When you don't get your way, your own lack of a sense of fair play takes over and you start calling names.
Have you ever wondered how that makes you look and how it causes others to view what you have to say when you are trying to make a point?? Here's a clue, it makes what you say completely null.
posted on October 11, 2005 06:23:09 PM new
To point out another Linda_K lie. When Bush signed a order that allows contractors in New Orleans to pay workers below a prevailing wage for that area. Linda_K said it would be a good thing, she said it would allow contractors to give lots of jobs to Americans.
Now several bid and no bid contractors are recruiting workers from Central America and Mexico SO THEY CAN PAY THEM SCAB WAGES.
98% of the words that Linda_K posts are FLAT OUT LIES OR TWISTED TRUTHS.
We all know how Linda_K's buddy Ron thinks about paying a living wage. In his own words he told us all he only pays a truck driver 1/2 of the prevailing wage for driving in his area.
Ron never did say if his driver was an illegal.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THE HOUSE OF LIARS AND GREED HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND IS FALLING APART.
posted on October 11, 2005 06:27:45 PM new
Pieinthesky, in this thread I'm interested in defending myself against a lie. So far, you have condoned that lie about me and then suggested that I have a knowledge deficit. Do you believe that makes you appear more credible?
To make a long story short, I don't want to chat with you right now. Go don your Halloween outfit and show Maggie a photo.
They're just in denial to what's actually being brought up for discussion ALL the time in the media.
