Rolling politics thread...

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 20:50:04

dajafi wrote:CREW lists the 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Members of the Senate:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Dishonorable Mention:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

In other news, left wing think tank thinks Republicans are evil.

by **phdave** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 21:13:02

VoxOrion wrote:In other news, left wing think tank thinks Republicans are evil.

CREW is neither a think tank nor left wing.

I don't understand why anyone would defend the members of that list.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 22:05:49

phdave wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:In other news, left wing think tank thinks Republicans are evil.

CREW is neither a think tank nor left wing.

I don't understand why anyone would defend the members of that list.

Who is defending them? Did you look into CREW or just decide they aren't left wing just because? (you're right, they aren't a think tank)

Democracy Alliance funds CREW.

Here's what WaPo had to say about Democracy Alliance:

Democracy Alliance also has left some Washington political activists concerned about what they perceive as a distinctly liberal tilt to the group's funding decisions.

Here's how the organization determines who they fund:

Wade declined to discuss the donors or the groups they fund. But, in an interview, she described how the groups were chosen. Alliance officials initially reviewed about 600 liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. Then, about 40 of those groups were invited to apply for an endorsement -- with a requirement that they submit detailed business plans and internal financial information. Those groups were then screened by a panel of alliance staff members, donors and outside experts, including some with expertise in philanthropy rather than politics. So far, according to people familiar with the alliance, 25 groups have received its blessing.

The Deputy Director of CREW describes the organization as:

"We are progressive," said Naomi Seligman, the group's deputy director and a former spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. "We do work within a larger progressive infrastructure."

Seligman suggested her group is the progressive counterweight to Judicial Watch, a group from the right that calls itself "a non-profit, public interest law firm dedicated to fighting government corruption."

Here are some of their right wing projects:

* Clint Curtis
* Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
* Theft of Democratic documents within the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
* Ethics violations by Tom DeLay
* Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson v. I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Richard B. Cheney.
* Tax allegations against Leslee Unruh, who spearheaded the South Dakota abortion ban.
* Former Representative Mark Foley (see Mark Foley scandal)
* Curt Weldon, presently being investigated by the FBI

I'm not saying any one of these guys is a good guy, misrepresented, honest, or anything. I'm saying CREW presents an obvious left of center agenda in their work, and as such their evaluation has to be questioned when it comes to partisanship. You'd expect the same when the Clairmont Institute publishes it's lists.

My point is that it is no surprise that 84% of their bad guys are Republicans, and it shouldn't be to anyone who knows CREW's background.

Partisans tell the truth all the time, the fact that they are partisan does not make them 100% liars or 100% truth tellers. It makes their evaluations suspect to some degree no matter what.

by **dajafi** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 22:16:11

VoxOrion wrote:
dajafi wrote:CREW lists the 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Members of the Senate:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Dishonorable Mention:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

In other news, left wing think tank thinks Republicans are evil.

I thought you liked to stay out of these threads...

As I understand them, CREW is a good-government group that tries to shine a spotlight on pay-to-play legislators and everyone who's overly comfortable with the notion that companies, or whoever, can buy one's vote. Though I'm not familiar with every individual on this list, I am aware of the ethical "questions" around all four senators (I think that's just how they roll in Alaska), as well as Reps. Doolittle, Hastings, Jefferson, Lewis, Mollohan, Murtha, Renzi and Young.

The report this is taken from is titled something like "Beyond DeLay." One interpretation of this is what I gather is your view: they're picking on the Republicans. The other is that the distinguished Mr. DeLay was the guy who made it pretty much kosher for creeps like Doolittle, Lewis, Ney, Duke Cunningham and others to sell their votes without even doing much to conceal it.

In the first year of a new majority, there's been more of a focus on ethics and standards than there was toward the end of the Republican majority. (This was also true in 1995, when Gingrich was still fancying himself a reformer and the known sleazeballs were all Democrats--including John Murtha, who's presumably as happy back in the majority as a pig in... well, you know.) Given that Steny Hoyer is a big money guy, and Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer are the sorts who will push the rules to their limits, I'm fairly sure that next year's list will have a bunch more Democrats, and the one in two years--when they've got 260 votes in the House, 58 in the Senate, and the corporate-contributions-craving Empress in the White House--could be as heavily tilted that way as this year's is toward your guys.

by **dajafi** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 22:20:16

And, I might add, that's how it should be. When the Democrats go as proudly scummy as the Republicans did under DeLay, they should get eviscerated for it.

It's very possible that two years from now, "partisans" on the left and the right are going to be mad about the same things, or at least at the same people. The only difference could be that the liberals will be angry at their Democratic officeholders because they're unprincipled, and many of those on the right--not Vox, I shuold note--will hate them just because they've got the scarlet D after their names, indicating their hatred for God, country, guns and the Baby Jesus.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 22:20:21

I'm shocked - shocked!! - to learn of corruption in the halls of Congress.

I was more pleasantly surprised to come upon this terrific essay in the current New England Journal of Medicine, which waxes philosophical about the healthcare mandate that would be universal coverage:

Health Care for All?

The author leads by drawing on one of my favorite historians, Philip Bobbitt - one of those intros that had me remarking aloud "now why didn't I think of that?"

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 23:15:16

dajafi wrote:
The report this is taken from is titled something like "Beyond DeLay." One interpretation of this is what I gather is your view: they're picking on the Republicans.

Well, screw Republicans. They blew the trust of the people who elected them, blew the majority, blew the respect, and severely damaged the concept of conservatism. I've voted Republican because their views are more closely associated with my own - but I don't want criminals and I certainly don't want people that can't convey a clear message or whose actions sully others who "share" their political position with their criminal behavior. Lock em all up. However, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that it was so easy to find 20 Republicans yet they could only scratch together 4 token Democrats. Specifically because of CREW's admitted and what I consider a fairly obvious and documented agenda that is not non-partisan by any stretch.

I don't even question their facts - I question what filter and criteria they chose to put them through. Something tells me there are some items that a conservative wouldn't add or wouldn't leave off of that filter, and some value judgments that are debatable from a non "progressive" perspective. I'm certain their research reveals some serious no doubt about it scumbagitude. Which goes back to my comment that being partisan does not make one a liar. We've discussed this before, I prefer partisanship on the whole. However, with that said, I also suspect their research reveals some "if you agree with their progressive views" scumbagitude as well.

Whatever, I'm repeating myself. Being partisan doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth - I just think knowing CREW's motivations takes... oh, I don't know... 80% of the shock off of that list (going back to my original comment).

AND, I hate when my itchy posting finger gets me into these discussions because I do hate this back-patting thread and I hate myself for even reading it (I normally avoid it completely). I should unabashedly persecute each and every one of you.

by **pacino** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 23:18:57

Just admit it, you dismissed it out of hand simply because of where it came from.

ADMIT IT!!!

by **phdave** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 01:30:18

VoxOrion wrote:Who is defending them? Did you look into CREW or just decide they aren't left wing just because? (you're right, they aren't a think tank)

You were certainly defending them through your dismissive and sarcastic remark about them being called evil. And you apparantly dismissed CREW's findings without knowing anything about them (unless I am reading your comment incorrectly). So you mocked the validity of the list they were on which is a way of arguing that they may not really be as corrupt as they are being labled. That is a defense, although based on an ad homenim attack on the group putting the list together rather than a direct defense of the individuals.

I didn't need to look into CREW because I already know a lot about them, including the investigations they have had ongoing for years about the members of that list. I have heard countless interviews with Melanie Sloan about the ongoing investigations she has going. I heard her discuss investigations into plenty of politicians who are now in jail.

I don't consider them left wing because I don't see anything ideological in what they do. They investigate and expose corruption. There is nothing left wing or right wing about corruption. I consider myself progressive and I want them to expose whatever corruption there is among those who call themselves progressive as well as the corruption among those who call themselves conservatives. I think that Judicial Watch has done some great investigations. I know they are funded through conservative groups but I don't really consider what they do ideological. Their efforts at being watchdogs sometimes makes them investigate Republicans including the Bush White House. Just like CREW goes after Jack Murtha. How does going after Jack Murtha help progressive causes? Certainly a lot of progressives didn't think it was so great because they attacked CREW when they criticized Pelosi for backing him as majority leader.

My point of view is that corruption is an impediment to the democratic process, whether you are progressive or conservative. Progressives should be interested in exposing corruption regardless of the ideology of the politician. I don't really care what William Jefferson's political leanings are if he has $90,000 in his freezer. I assume that he is more interested in pursuing the interests of those who gave him the money than the people who voted for him.

VoxOrion wrote:I'm not saying any one of these guys is a good guy, misrepresented, honest, or anything. I'm saying CREW presents an obvious left of center agenda in their work, and as such their evaluation has to be questioned when it comes to partisanship. You'd expect the same when the Clairmont Institute publishes it's lists.

My point is that it is no surprise that 84% of their bad guys are Republicans, and it shouldn't be to anyone who knows CREW's background.

Partisans tell the truth all the time, the fact that they are partisan does not make them 100% liars or 100% truth tellers. It makes their evaluations suspect to some degree no matter what.

The problem I had with your comment wasn't that you questioned the members on the list. It was the opposite. You dismissed the list without really questioning it. Certainly their allegations could be bogus or the list could be unbalanced because they were leaving off members of one party who did things that got members of another party on the list. Did you find any allegations to this effect in your reserach? That seems like a more important question than the funding source of the organization that has been investigating these politicians. Is it out of the question that the most corrupt politicians are mainly Republicans?

by **Disco Stu** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 02:46:26

VoxOrion wrote:My point is that it is no surprise that 84% of their bad guys are Republicans, and it shouldn't be to anyone who knows CREW's background.

This is the exact reasoning use to denegrate Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Reminds me when I was listening to G Cobb on the radio at the end of the last Eagles season and he was talking about how people were rallying around Garcia and were hating on McNabb. He said it was a race issue. Callers were then calling in saying that he was saying it was a race issue because he was black.

This hits on a few latin fallacies. Just because you are on one side, doesn't mean you aren't 100% accurate.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 04:22:16

phdave wrote:.....

I started to reply to all of this, then I got tired of pointing out how often you decided what I was thinking or what I really meant despite what actually wrote and realized that continuing to debate such nonsense was pissing up a rope and I'm too smart to do that twice in one day.

by **phdave** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 13:17:25

VoxOrion wrote:
phdave wrote:.....

I started to reply to all of this, then I got tired of pointing out how often you decided what I was thinking or what I really meant despite what actually wrote and realized that continuing to debate such nonsense was pissing up a rope and I'm too smart to do that twice in one day.

I read over my post and I don't even see where I wrote anything about what you were really thinking or what you really meant.

I addressed your post:

VoxOrion wrote:In other news, left wing think tank thinks Republicans are evil.

This post was dismissive (not questioning), sarcastic, and defended the Republicans on the list (at least indirectly). I did remark that you made this comment without even knowing who CREW was, but I admitted that I got that from your post and maybe I was wrong. I asked you a couple of questions (legitimate questions, not rhetorical). The rest of my post was explaining my point of view.

So I have no idea what you are talking about by saying that I decided what you really meant. You wrote a lot of stuff in your second and third posts that involved a lot more thought. I don't think the comment above involved a lot of thinking to interpret.

VoxOrion wrote:However, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that it was so easy to find 20 Republicans yet they could only scratch together 4 token Democrats. Specifically because of CREW's admitted and what I consider a fairly obvious and documented agenda that is not non-partisan by any stretch.

I don't even question their facts - I question what filter and criteria they chose to put them through. Something tells me there are some items that a conservative wouldn't add or wouldn't leave off of that filter, and some value judgments that are debatable from a non "progressive" perspective. I'm certain their research reveals some serious no doubt about it scumbagitude. Which goes back to my comment that being partisan does not make one a liar. We've discussed this before, I prefer partisanship on the whole. However, with that said, I also suspect their research reveals some "if you agree with their progressive views" scumbagitude as well.

You are probably not reading this anymore, but I'd like to point out that their list isn't just a list. They have been investigating these individuals and in many cases uncovering evidence of corruption. They often work with the FBI on investigations. Maybe you would find it interesting to learn more about the corruption they have uncovered. There is no need to speculate about why they put these people on the list, they put out a lot of information they collect on these individuals.

And I'll ask once again, are there Democrats they have not investigated who should have been investigated? I really want to know. You looked into it, maybe you found somethign. If CREW is putting their thumb on the scale towards Republicans, that would bother me. However, I've done a fair amount of looking into what they do and I don't see any bias in their methods.

I am sure there are many Democrats in office who wish CREW did not exist. The Democratic leadership has done a few good things to emphasize ethics but they have not gone anywhere near as far as I would like them to go. I think the reason is that they don't want to do too much because they worry about being targeted for ethics violations. So I think that many Democrats are just as wary about CREW as many Republicans.

But the Republicans had been in charge for so long and their leadership (Delay) was very cavaleer about his own lack of concern for ethics that there was the perfect atmosphere for a majority of Republicans to be targets of ethic violations. The violations they are being investigated for mainly happend years ago. If the Democratic leadership is allowing similar ethics violations, it probably won't surface for some time. If it does, I hope CREW continues to expose and investigate no matter which party is at fault.

by **TomatoPie** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 05:31:36

Left wing think tank?

I do think they fall short of that mark.

I suspect that they are quite sincere about exposing pay-to-play legislators. I agree that they probably see things through a left-wing filter. Take a look at staff:

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director
Melanie Sloan serves as CREW's Executive Director. Prior to starting CREW, she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia where, from 1998-2003, she successfully tried cases before dozens of judges and juries. Before becoming a prosecutor, Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, working for Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) and specializing in criminal justice issues.

In 1994, Ms. Sloan served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Prior to serving in Congress, she was an associate at Howrey and Simon in Washington, D.C. and at Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Sloan received her B.A. and J.D. from the University of Chicago and has published in the Yale Law and Policy Review, Legal Times, The Washington Post, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Naomi Seligman Steiner, Deputy Director and Communications Director
Naomi Seligman Steiner serves as CREW's Deputy Director and Communications Director. She has worked extensively as a communications professional, developing and managing media strategies for campaigns, elected officials and nonprofit organizations. Prior to joining CREW, Ms. Seligman Steiner was the communications director for the nonprofit, media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. She also has served as the communications director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun control organization, and has acted as press secretary in House and Senate offices and as director of outreach for the House Small Business Committee. Ms. Seligman Steiner received her B.A. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Anne L. Weismann, Chief Counsel
Anne Weismann serves as CREW’s Chief Counsel. Prior to joining CREW, Ms. Weismann served as Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission, where she had responsibility for all of the Bureau's telecommunications matters. Before that, she worked in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, where she served as an Assistant Branch Director with supervisory responsibility over banking litigation, housing litigation, and from 1995 until 2002, all government information litigation. This included litigation under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act and statutes governing federal and presidential records. Prior to that she worked in the Solicitor's Office of the Department of Labor. Ms. Weismann received her B.A. magna cum laude from Brown University and her J.D. from George Washington University’s National Law Center.

Kimberly Perkins, Counsel
Kimberly Perkins serves as Counsel for CREW. Prior to joining the organization, she served as Assistant General Counsel for the National Office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) where she led the NAACP’s Voting Rights & Redistricting Project and Election Protection efforts across the country. Ms. Perkins has spent several years in private practice, focusing on employment and labor law issues and also has worked for the National Labor Relations Board. She received her B.A. from Howard University and her J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law, where she served as a Member of the Moot Court Board.

Dan Roth, Counsel
Dan Roth joined CREW as Counsel and assists in all aspects of CREW's litigation practice. He previously served as the Dorot Judicial Selection Fellow at the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a nonprofit, national association of public interest groups that work to advance the cause of justice for all citizens. There he researched and drafted reports on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court and on a slate of other nominees to the federal bench. He also co-developed and co-hosted the "Supreme Court Watch" podcast for AFJ, building a base of regular listeners throughout the country. During law school, Mr. Roth served as president of the Boston College Law School chapter of the American Constitution Society and vice president of the school's Public Interest Law Foundation. He co-founded the Coalition for Equality, a campus organization dedicated to the full enforcement of the law school's non-discrimination policy and was the 2004 recipient of both the Susan Grant DesMarais Award for Public Interest Leadership and Service and the Drinan Fund Award, also a public service scholarship. Mr. Roth, who first worked in Washington, D.C. as a John Glenn Fellow, received his B.A. summa cum laude from Ohio State University and his J.D. from Boston College Law School.

Rusty J Trump, Senior Communications Associate
Rusty J Trump serves as Senior Communications Associate for CREW. Trump brings to CREW a background in political advocacy and communications. During the 2006 election cycle, Trump worked with several high-profile races while on the staff of Murphy Putnam Shorr & Partners, a leading media consulting firm. Prior to his time at Murphy, Putnam, Shorr & Partners, Trump got his start in communications at the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute where he served as Communications & Outreach Manager. Trump received his B.A. in political science from Moravian College in Bethlehem, PA.

Ryan Jham, Research Associate
Ryan Jham is a Research Associate at CREW. Before joining the organization, Ryan worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He comes to CREW with experience in corporate and political campaigns, as well as congressional offices. Ryan is a native of Danville, Illinois and a graduate of The George Washington University.

Robin Powers, Research Associate
Robin Powers serves as a Research Associate at CREW. Prior to joining the organization, Ms. Powers served as a Program Associate for Alliance for Justice, a nonprofit, national association of public interest groups that work to advance the cause of justice for all citizens. As Program Associate, she coordinated workshops and tracked legislation affecting the ability of the nonprofit community to engage in the public policy process. Ms. Powers also has interned with Vital Voices Global Partnership, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and various political campaigns. She is a graduate of the University of Iowa.

Allison McCabe, Research Associate
Allison McCabe serves as a Research Associate at CREW. Prior to joining the organization, Ms. McCabe served as a Program Instructor with The Close-Up Foundation, the nation’s largest non-profit civic education program. A native of Milwaukee, WI, Ms. McCabe received her B.A. from the University of Iowa and her M.A. from Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland.

Zachary Dagneau, Research Assisstant
Zachary Dagneau is a research assistant at CREW. Before joining the organization, Zack taught civics and grassroots political action as a Program Instructor with The Close-Up Foundation. A native of Traverse City, Michigan, Zack studied Russian history and public policy at Albion College.

Alexander Diaz, Staff Assistant
Alexander Diaz is a Staff Assistant at CREW. Before joining the organization, Alex worked for Americorps’ Jumpstart Program, a program committed to mentoring pre-school children in inner cities. Mr. Diaz also has worked with The Fund for Public Interest Research and The United Nations. Alex is a native of Caracas, Venezuela and a graduate of Northeastern University.

Mayanna Prak, Business Manager
Mayanna Prak serves as Business Manager for CREW. Prior to joining the organization, Ms. Prak assisted an ambassador in the operation of a foreign embassy and served as associate director at a social service agency. Ms. Prak also has provided financial analyses, legal assistance, and project management for several large companies. Ms. Prak is a graduate of the University of Illinois.

by **Rococo4** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 13:47:09

Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

by **pacino** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:28:03

OK, so now that we've successfully decided that the above people are evil, what about all the crooked politicians they're talking about?

by **phdave** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:30:47

TomatoPie wrote:I agree that they probably see things through a left-wing filter.

Is there any evidence of a filter. Evidence that members of this organization have been involved with causes that are considered left wing is not the same thing. If they conduct their investigations with a left-wing filter, that would suggest that they take investigations of corruption by politicians more seriously if they are right-wing and less seriously if they are left-wing. In order for me to be convinced of this, more republicans than democrats being investigated is not good enough. More Republicans doing corrupt things is a reasonable contrary explanation. Given the power position that Republicans have been in and the evidence that someone like Jack Abramoff was working exclusivly with Republicans, this is a reasonable possibiliy.

However, reasonable possibilities are not evidence. I need to see cases of Democrats/left-wingers who are being treated better by CREW than Republicans who have done the same thing.

by **phdave** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:34:03

Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

by **Rococo4** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 17:52:33

phdave wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

I didnt read the actual link, but I am guessing they threw Domenici on there based on the fake US Attorneys scandal, possibily Heather Wilson as well with that

by **kimbatiste** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 01:03:07

Rococo4 wrote:
phdave wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

I didnt read the actual link, but I am guessing they threw Domenici on there based on the fake US Attorneys scandal

Explain.

by **Rococo4** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:05:41

kimbatiste wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:
phdave wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

I didnt read the actual link, but I am guessing they threw Domenici on there based on the fake US Attorneys scandal

Explain.

I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

Archived

Rolling politics thread...