Rod Blagojevich (D)

[capnhowdy]

Now its time for the juvenile approach of "well if your gonna spank me your gonna spank him and him and her and him..." and "he started it". What a fokkin wimpweasle.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Interestingly enough there is no mention of his political affiliation either. Took me a little bit of searching to actually find it.
No, It doesn't matter whether he is an R or a D, but the bias in reporting is becoming a trend. This is the second time in a week.

Same thing happened with the mayor from Baltimore, there was no mention of her political affiliation until somewhere at the very bottom of the original articles. Subsequent articles moved her political affiliations closer to the top of the page, but still no headlines. You know if it were a Republickin it would have been a headliner on page 1.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Blagojevich behaved just like Clinton.

One more datum for why people of integrity don't vote for Democrats, and shouldn't vote for Democrats.

Give campaign contributions to somebody else.

There used to be a time when I could choose a candidate to vote for and I actually had faith and confidence in their personal integrity. Over the last couple of decades my faith had dwindled down to damn near a coin toss or plucking petals from a daisy.

I'm either getting paranoid or just losing my faith in mankind. Honestly, I almost prefer the paranoia.

<heavy sigh>

He got what he deserved.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, I've been well served by a habit of either voting for a candidate -- or against. Not a lot of starry-eyed idealism goes into my voting either. Sometimes it's a third-party candidate, with the aim of encouragement to that third party. In my case, only one third party.

Skepticism towards officeholders is hardly a vice in a republic.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...One more datum for why people of integrity don't vote for Democrats, and shouldn't vote for Democrats.

Give campaign contributions to somebody else.

Someone should have given that advice to Jack Abramoff and all those members of Congress (mostly Republican) that he bankrolled.

It might have kept him and a bunch of Republicans out of jail or under ethical clouds.

Seriously, that is really an ignorant comment.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Redux, start reading National Review for at least half a year -- then get back to me about "ignorance," okay?

UG...I suggest you start here:

A report on corruption investigations of members of the 109th Congress..the last Republican majority Congress:

Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.

http://www.propublica.org/article/po...gation-wrap-up

You might also want to read about the K Street project.

The Grover Norquist/Tom DeLay/Karl Rove plan of influence peddling with the hope of creating a permanent Republican majority.

Kinda backfired on them after Abramoff's arrest and Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress under an ethical cloud.

The Washington Post had an article in 2005 on the growth of lobbyists during the years 2001-2004 when the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.

The Road to Riches is Called K Street

We can disagree on policy issues....but integrity? I think not!

Power corrupts...not party affiliation.

Please, show a little more objectivity.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Redux, start reading National Review for at least half a year -- then get back to me about "ignorance," okay?

Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?

Originally Posted by TGRR

Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?

And never let facts get in the way of those talking points.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?

Because National Review is first of all conservative, not first of all Republican. Expect a strong note of American Catholicism too; other mags like American Spectator have more a Protestant flavor, plus whatever degree of Jewishness Ben Stein's column adds.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Because National Review is first of all conservative, not first of all Republican.

Can't see much difference, these days.

[classicman]

Through all that hate - I'm amazed you can see at all.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Through all that hate - I'm amazed you can see at all.

There's a sort of a red haze, yeah, but it's not opaque.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

They make so good a case for the conservative cause that it's quite persuaded me. The brains all seem to be on the right-hand side of the aisle. So I hang with the smart guys.

[classicman]

In his January 8 testimony before an Illinois House impeachment panel, Burris, the former Illinois attorney general, said he had no conversations with Blagojevich before the then-governor's arrest about his desire to be appointed to the seat.

But in a statement released Friday to the Sun-Times along with the affidavit filed February 5, Burris said, "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee, so, upon receiving the transcripts, I voluntarily submitted an affidavit so everything was transparent."

In the affidavit, Burris said he recalled that Rob Blagojevich called him three times -- in October and then twice shortly after the November elections -- to "seek my assistance in fundraising for Gov. Blagojevich."

Hmm.