Who will be the next Senate Minority Leader? - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInMaine · 02-09-2006, 03:52 PM

Kerry? Kennedy? Feingold?

It appears as though Dirty Harry's ship is sinking.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184377,00.html

***Patters*** · 02-09-2006, 04:43 PM

Or Trent Lott.

***gomezcat*** · 02-09-2006, 05:18 PM

to NEM and Patters. I vote for Tom de Lay.

PFIM, Abramoff might take down a couple of Democrats- your side should be safe from the bloodletting, though. (Cough, splutter)

All_Around_Brown · 02-09-2006, 05:29 PM

If Reid is linked to Abramoff, I'd be very surprised. We'll see what traction this gets, but if I read the article carefully, it states that Reid took money from Indian Tribes which were also Abramoff clients...not that he took money directly from Abramoff.

Abramoff is closely tied to the Republicans. This is an ugly fact that FOX is trying to deflect. The strategy is to make it sound like everyone took money from Abramoff. The reality is that far more Republicans are going to be outed than Dems, including the very tip of the iceberg, Bush himself.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e_x.htm?csp=34

"Their refusal to release information is inexcusable," says Tom Fitton, president of conservative legal organization Judicial Watch. As a result, the scandal "is now in the White House." http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20070208.html

Quote:

White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings
By Nedra Pickler
The Associated Press

Tuesday 17 January 2005

The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.

Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. "I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that," he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. "And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon."

McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings.

He has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two - in 2001 and 2002.

McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.

Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title "pioneer." The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions - which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented - and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.

Of course, Bush is saying he doesn't know this man. Is Bush lying?

PFinMe...theres some KoolAid missing from your cooler. (PS Is your buddy James Tobin serving his time yet?)

All_Around_Brown · 02-09-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gomezcat

to NEM and Patters. I vote for Tom de Lay.

PFIM, Abramoff might take down a couple of Democrats- your side should be safe from the bloodletting, though. (Cough, splutter)

No chance. Delay will be resigning in disgrace in the very near future. Besides, he's in the House not Senate.

***gomezcat*** · 02-09-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

No chance. Delay will be resigning in disgrace in the very near future. Besides, he's in the House not Senate.

I was being facetious!

I didn't realise he was in the House, sorry. I need to get round to understanding the difference at some point.

All_Around_Brown · 02-09-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gomezcat

I was being facetious!

I didn't realise he was in the House, sorry. I need to get round to understanding the difference at some point.

There are 2 senators per state = 100.

There is one representative for each district (subset of state based on population).

(I know you were joking BTW )

***gomezcat*** · 02-09-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

There are 2 senators per state = 100.

There is one representative for each district (subset of state based on population).

(I know you were joking BTW )

OK, thanks. I guess that makes senators more important(?).