I don’t know which I find more frightening: the blatently improper-- if not illegal-- shake-down tactics employed by officers of the court, or the fact that they see absolutely nothing wrong with it. This has Ashcroft’s fingerprints all over it, and a man with less scruples or respect for the law America has never seen. I would much prefer an administration full of philandering sex addicts than the crop of power grabbing extortionists that has sprung up around this administration.
Sounds like a major scandal. Hope the Dem leadership finds their brains, or replaces whatever they’ve been using for brains, and works it for all it’s worth.
If this takes down Pryor, it’ll be a lucky break for everyone. But the American public is scandal weary. As far as they are concerned, you can bend down and fart right in their faces, and they won’t get too upset unless you also say something bad about apple pie.
It’s hardly new - [link](http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/ news/021030/pryor.shtml) from last February. That ever-predictable liberal media strikes again. We’ve discussed Pryor in the Pit before, including this.
The Democrats have more serious issues to address than this right now, don’tcha think? The GOP isn’t even pushing a committee vote on Pryor, and if they did, he’d just be added to the filibuster list.
I don’t see what the fuss is about. Didn’t you all hear? The Campaign Finance Reform bill passed. There isn’t any corruption in political fundraising anymore. :rolleyes:
Where are all the Republican apologists on this? december? Sam Stone? John Mace? Shodan? Or is this too egregious even for your conservative politics? Defend it if you can! Your silence speaks volumes!
Since you invited me so nicely, Fear Itself, I will say that I find this fund-raising campaign disgusting. I will ignore your silly claim that it’s related to John Ashcroft, and ask three questions:
Is it illegal?
Is it abnormal?
Is it more disgusting than other forms of political fund-raising?
Regarding qurestion #3, here are two episodes from the long-ago past.
After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Castro demanded a large ransom to release the anti-Castro Cuban invaders he had taken prisoner. It was not politically wise for JFK to use government money, so Attorney General Bobby Kennedy spear-headed the fund-raising effort by going to large corporations and ordering them to contribute the amount he said. Corporations were told to pay up or else.
When Willie Brown headed the California Assembly, they had a practice of introducing a bill that would be disastrous for some industry, then going to businesses in that industry to get donations. (Even people who oppose Willie Brown admire him as a brilliant politician. In this case, rather then look for parties with an interest in pending legislation, Brown created legistation that was of interest to the parties he wanted money from.)
These examples don’t excuse the Republican AG’s. What the AG’s did was scummy. But the examples may show why not much fuss is being made. Sadly, this sort of fundraising may be business as usual.
Unless it can be shown that the fundraising had an impact on the decisions made by the Attorneys General I see no problem with this. They are politicians seeking campaign funds from businesses. Every candidate for governor, senator, or presidential does the exact same thing. There is no evidence at all in the article that any of these funds influenced the attorneys general at all.
This is the attitude that I find most disturbing. This tactic is so wrong on so many levels, yet Republicans see it as a normal business practice. If a Soprano-esque thug shows up in your shop and asks for a donation to the Italian-American Benevolent Fund, are you going to take the risk that he isn’t really menacing you? It is wrong on the face of it, and that you can’t distinguish between legal fundraising by other political figures, and specifically targeting industries because they are the focus of ongoing legal action exposes the amorality of the conservative bottom-line mentality.
Thank you, december, for having the courage to honestly condemn these odious practices, even though they are members of your own party.
I am not sure whether the shakedown reference is hyperbole or a genuine lack of perspective on your part. There is no evidence of any threat, no promise of any benefit just a solicitation of a donation. Try to name an industry that the government has not at least threatened to regulate or sue. This is just an effort to smear the good name of honorable men with baseless innuendo.
To suggest that there is no impropriety or conflict of interest in having an attorney general solicit donations from those he is investigating is indefensible. This was not a case of coincidental fund raising; these companies were targetted specifically because they were under investigation. If this is your concept of honor, I can see you do not hold it to a very high standard.
Oooooh, fogive us, Fear! Nobody told us we had a moral obligation to respond immediately to everything you post!
Now, as usual you’re engaging in fevered hyperbolic editorializing, rather than reporting. But based on a cursor look at your source, there DOES seem to be a conflict of interest here, to say the very least.
So, speaking as one right-wing partisan, I’m perfectly willing to support an investigation. And IF the Attorneys General in question have committed a crime (that’s far from obvious, but I don’t mind humoring you), I have no problem with sending them to jail.
Heck, Democrat Dan Morales, the old Attorney General of Texas, just went to jail yesterday. Maybe he can start tidying up the place, in anticipation of company!
Satisfied? Or must I join you in screaming “off with their heads”?
Do you really think that the protection racket is run only by back alley thugs shaking down candy store owners? Do you thing the threat / reward has to be expressed? Do you really think that the trade groups and businesses solicited didn’t have some idea that they were buying at least access to the AG?
The fact that this stuff is not new doesn’t make it any less palatable.
Do you really think that the protection racket is run only by back alley thugs shaking down candy store owners? Do you thing the threat / reward has to be expressed? Do you really think that the trade groups and businesses solicited didn’t have some idea that they were buying at least access to the AG?
The fact that this stuff is not new doesn’t make it any less palatable.
Nowhere in the article does it even allege that there was any law breaking, threats, or rewards. There is not even a suggestion that the attorney’s general behavior was influenced by whether or not the companies gave money. Your willingness to throw mud without any evidence shows just how little you think of honor or decency.