Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A hint of Democratic strategy in regards to Abramoff?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:31 PM
Original message
A hint of Democratic strategy in regards to Abramoff?
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 09:39 PM by ayeshahaqqiqa
I'm listening to Arkansas Public Television's "Arkansas Week in Review", which this week features a live interview with our Senator Mark Pryor (D). A wide range of topics were covered, with Pryor taking a cautious course, as befits a Democrat in a state that voted for Bush. But let me talk about Abramoff.

He conceded that if he finds he got any money from Abramoff, he'd take care of it-it appears that the journalist questioning him threw it out that he had gotten some contributions "from someone connected to Abramoff" just before they went on air; he also conceded that perhaps other Democrats had received money. But then he talked about working with Sen. Reid on investigating things-and then said, what for him, I found rather surprising-he felt Abramoff's scheme was to increase GOP power. Yes, I know we've talked about it here for quite a while, but it shocked me almost to hear someone who is usually rather cautious and timid to talk so vehemently about it-the journalist who interviewed him seemed surprised as well, but Pryor kept insisting that Abramoff was part of the repuke (my word) scheme to take over and maintain power.

Could this mean that Reid and other Dems are planning to bring this out more and let the general public know about this?

Edited for typo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's what I've been saying - the ILLEGAL money was stolen and...
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 09:36 PM by ClassWarrior
...laundered to avoid the finance laws - then channeled to the Reps. Now why would somebody go to the trouble and risk of doing that, just to "spread it around" to both sides?? Wouldn't that be pointless? No, Jack's a frickin' money pipeline for the corrupt Party of Nixon.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Will the Dems in Congress take this and run with it?
Pryor usually keeps a low profile-I hope the fact he brought this up means that Reid and others have some solid evidence they plan to bring out, or know that Abramoff has really spilled the beans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Exactly!!
And, he made out like a bandit for doing the repugs this 'favor'. I could NEVER have imagined a more corrupt bunch of slimes than these men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. what is "scemem"???? otherwise it sounds pretty good.
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 09:37 PM by stop the bleeding
I found rather surprising-he felt Abramoff's scemem was to increase GOP power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks, teach
Spelling was never my best subject. It has been changed. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Like I have room to talk,
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 09:48 PM by stop the bleeding
you really had me thinking that this was a real word and I almost went and consulted Websters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good question , but obviously there is no real, unified strategy
Once again, it's each Dem for him/herself. Otherwise, NONE of the Democrats would have returned the money, since NONE of them did anything wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC