hmm. I haven't looked at all the links yet, but perhaps DeLay *is* some sort of golf nut. I remember one of the stories about the Indian tribes getting ripped off that mentioned a golfing trip to Scotland.
Dana On 4/13/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wasn't that to stop the witch-hunt? > The ethics committee cleared him three times last year and yet they > keep going after him. > > Meanwhile Dems have been doing it all along and it barely makes the news. > > Hillary Campaign Finance Director charged with fudging numbers for > 2000 Hollywood fundraiser > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0107052clinton1.html > > A staff member of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly took > a fact-finding trip to Spain paid for by a group that Pelosi helped > get grants. > http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050405-09022300-bc-us-pelosi.xml > > Chuck Schumer paid the biggest FEC fine ever for violating spending > limits in his campaign. > http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york050503.asp > > http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp > APR. 6, 2005: DELAYED > Seems to me that this morning's front-page attack on Tom DeLay by the > Washington Post isn't a story about Tom DeLay at all. The story makes > clear that DeLay did nothing wrong. In 1997, he took a trip to Russia > paid for (as far as he had any reason to be aware) by the National > Center for Public Policy Research in Washington D.C. The Center's > president, Amy Ridenour, even came along for the trip. > > The Post describes DeLay's activities on the trip thus: "During his > six days in Moscow, he played golf, met with Russian church leaders > and talked to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin ...." As if DeLay > flew to Moscow in order to hit the links. In fact, the United States > had some heavy decisions to make about aid to Russia in 1997 and 1998, > and it's not surprising that the then number-three man in the House of > Representatives would want to see the situation for himself. > > It now turns out that the Center defrayed the cost with some doubtful > donations from lobbyists, including Jack Abramoff, now the central > figure in a major federal investigation of corruption and > influence-peddling. Abramoff was representing Russian oil and gas > interests with a special interest in influencing US policy toward > Russia. Abramoff also joined DeLay and Ridenour on the mission. > > These dots can certainly be connected in a way that presents an ugly > picture of Jack Abramoff's activities. It could easily be suggested > that he was trying to circumvent bans on lobbyist-paid travel in order > to gain access to a powerful member of the House of Representatives, > just the latest in a long list of unsettling allegations about the > longtime conservative activist turned multimillionaire lobbyist. But > the Post is not satisfied with bagging Abramoff. They want DeLay too, > or rather, they want DeLay more. Instead of seeing DeLay as Abramoff's > target, they want to insinuate that Abramoff was DeLay's tool. And > that case has not even begun to be made. > > Meanwhile, by amazing coincidence, the Times this morning also offers > a big attack feature on DeLay. The Times story makes the point that > DeLay's campaign and political action committees - ie, his > contributor-funded organizations, not his taxpayer-funded office - > employed his wife and daughter at various times, paying them some > $4,000 a month each. This practice is not illegal nor is it, alas, > even all that uncommon, as the Times itself acknowledges in its story. > > But while we're on the topic of doubtful practices, can we notice > this, please? The Times story is sourced to - and is packed full of > quotations from - a series of groups whistled up by George Soros for > almost the exclusive purpose of attacking DeLay. (You can read some of > the details here.) Maybe the Times should be alerting its readers to > the true identity of those sources of these shocked-and-appalled > quotations? Or even balancing this bought-and-paid-for expertise with > comments from some genuinely disinterested and impartial observers? > > > On 4/13/05, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > That's possible, but the social agenda is a fundimental part of the > > parties' current ideological philosophies. I think that the difference > > is that here the party in power has much more opportunity to suppress > > the scandal. For instance when the Delay corruption scandal initially > > broke, the Republicans pushed through a set of changes to the House > > Ethics Committee that allows them to easily block any ethics > > investigation. > > > > larry > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153801 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
