|
Regarding bluebishop82's comment: Let's clear up a few things. Abramoff is not a "Republican" If you believe that, you don't know Jack, the Jack Abramoff scandal that is. The Rove-Rushian Repugs' disinformation campaign has been very successful in fact-fogging. The Dems in question took money from legitimate Indian tribe lobbyists, not Abramoff: "The tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect [a nonpartisan firm, American Prospect Online - Dems Don’t Know Jack ] shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them. True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors. There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal." - Paul Krugman, A False Balance - New York Times Dorgan and Reid have been strong supporters of tribal issues since they
became lawmakers. In contrast: "Jack Abramoff was doing two things:
(1) massively overbilling tribes he admitted to loathing (see those internal
e-mail memos); (2) partially earning his keep by giving things of value to his
buddies on Capitol Hill [all Republicans] so they would support tribe-favored
legislation they would not otherwise have backed. " Russ
Baker TomPaine.com
- Money Motivations
And the so-called liberal media have done little defogging.
It is admirable that many mainstream Republicans have tried to distance
themselves from the the likes of Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Divid
Duke et al; unfortunately, the party did sell its soul, in a sense, by pandering
to those guys and the voters they're also able to deliver.
========Original Message========
I caught that when he said it, and I immediately thought of you, my friend. Let's clear up a few things. Abramoff is not a "Republican" scandal. Democrat Minority leader Harry Reid took $60K from Abramoff and won't give it back. Republican Majority leader Bill Frist took $1K and gave it back. Whose scandal is it? I predict it will take down members of both parites. As to the President's concern that activist Judges might re-define marriage, well I share that concern. You see marriage isn't defined in the Constitution at all. Not even heterosexual marriage. Any judge trying to offer a "definition" of marriage based on Constitutional law, be he for or against anyone's marriage, is over- stepping his judicial bounds no matter what result he "makes up." "Definitions" aside, there is an entirely different argument to be made on constitutional equal rights grounds. On that point I have distanced myself from both the postions of one George W. Bush and one John F. Kerry. I did so quite publicly, and I believe my column entitled "Don't Weaponize the Constitution, Mr. President" has been posted on gayasburypark.com for about 2 years now. It is a well run site Joe. You should check it out sometime. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Joe D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Will the BlueBishop, who was quick to distance himself from MOG's religious views likewise distance himself from President Bush's inference that same-sex relationships are immoral institutions that must be shielded from children and equating them with the lobbying scandals that have plagued his Republican Party in recent weeks? > > For the State of the Union address: > "Many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage," said President Bush, ethically tying marriage equality for same-sex couples to kick-back scandals that have led to the indictment of Republican House Leader Tom Delay and a senior White House official. > > "I am encouraged by the progress the President has made in appointing judges 'who are servants of the law' and who refuse 'to legislate from the bench,' marriage is a concern that cannot be left to the prerogative of the courts," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in reaction to the address. > > Immediately after President Bush compared the recognition of same- sex marriage to Republican ethics scandals, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman emailed Republican supporters in response. Mehlman urged past contributors to the Republican National Committee to sign a petition supporting the points President Bush made in his address, and to contact Congress to convey that support. The request was followed by a solicitation for "soft money" funds for the committee. > > Well, will he? > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
| ||||||||||
- [AsburyPark] BlueBishop, You Don't Know Jack luvinasburypark
- [AsburyPark] Re: BlueBishop, You Don't Know Jack bluebishop82
- [AsburyPark] Re: BlueBishop, You Don't Know Jack Sharon Boone
