Gore caught taking bribe?
- Thread starter Colombe
- Start date
Glock-A-Roo
New member
Hey Columbe, I was just now on my way to post the same news.
Everyone, here's what Drudge has so far:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
URGENT: GORE CAMPAIGN ROCKED BY NEW FUNDRAISING ACCUSATIONS
DNC CHAIR TO LAWYER IN MEMO: 'Sorry you missed the Vice President: I know [you] will give $100K
when the President vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible'...
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE WAS ACCUSED WEDNESDAY NIGHT OF MAKING A QUID PRO QUO WITH LAWYERS, TIME
MAGAZINE, NEW YORK TIMES, USA TODAY AND THE AP ARE SET TO REPORT...
Everyone, here's what Drudge has so far:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
URGENT: GORE CAMPAIGN ROCKED BY NEW FUNDRAISING ACCUSATIONS
DNC CHAIR TO LAWYER IN MEMO: 'Sorry you missed the Vice President: I know [you] will give $100K
when the President vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible'...
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE WAS ACCUSED WEDNESDAY NIGHT OF MAKING A QUID PRO QUO WITH LAWYERS, TIME
MAGAZINE, NEW YORK TIMES, USA TODAY AND THE AP ARE SET TO REPORT...
<A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/elections/091300/gore_probe_fnc.sml" TARGET=_blank>Dept. of Justice Investigating Gore
Over Fund-Raising From Trial Lawyers </A>
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Sources tell Fox News that the Department of Justice is now investigating another fund-raising matter involving Al Gore.
Fox has obtained documents detailing Gore's efforts to raise money from trial lawyers back in 1995.
After attending a fund-raiser in Houston in November 1995, the documents show Gore tried to follow up several days later with a call to a Texas trial lawyer named Walter Umphrey, but Gore was unable to reach him.
A call sheet written by Democratic National Committee staffer Erica Payne was then given to DNC official Don Fowler to follow up. The instructions for the call on Gore's behalf reads as follows.
(December 13, 1995)
"Reason For Call is 'Sorry you missed the Vice President; I know (you) will give $100K when the President vetoes Tort reform but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible.'"
The president did veto tort reform (which limits the amount of jury awards in lawsuits, anathema to trial lawyers) on May 2, 1996.
Umphrey did follow through with contributions after the veto. The exact date is not known, but FEC reports show a $30,000 contribution in the second quarter of 1996. He gave another $10,000 that November.
Over the last four years, he and his firm have given $800,000 to the Democrats. One source says before the veto, Umphrey had not contributed any money.
The bottom line is that the documents suggest that Gore was involved in a fund-raising effort in which there was a "quid pro quo" for contributions.
Democrats will surely say that Clinton would have vetoed the bill in any case because he and the Democrats generally have opposed tort reform — and get a lot of support from trial lawyers as a result.
Interestingly, one of the senators who was most outspoken in opposition to Clinton's veto was one Joseph Lieberman — now, of course, Gore's running mate.
Umphrey is also under grand jury investigation in Texas for his tobacco-fee arrangement, under which he gets $25 million every three months. The Texas attorney general is looking into "misconduct and wrongdoing."
— Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Over Fund-Raising From Trial Lawyers </A>
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Sources tell Fox News that the Department of Justice is now investigating another fund-raising matter involving Al Gore.
Fox has obtained documents detailing Gore's efforts to raise money from trial lawyers back in 1995.
After attending a fund-raiser in Houston in November 1995, the documents show Gore tried to follow up several days later with a call to a Texas trial lawyer named Walter Umphrey, but Gore was unable to reach him.
A call sheet written by Democratic National Committee staffer Erica Payne was then given to DNC official Don Fowler to follow up. The instructions for the call on Gore's behalf reads as follows.
(December 13, 1995)
"Reason For Call is 'Sorry you missed the Vice President; I know (you) will give $100K when the President vetoes Tort reform but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible.'"
The president did veto tort reform (which limits the amount of jury awards in lawsuits, anathema to trial lawyers) on May 2, 1996.
Umphrey did follow through with contributions after the veto. The exact date is not known, but FEC reports show a $30,000 contribution in the second quarter of 1996. He gave another $10,000 that November.
Over the last four years, he and his firm have given $800,000 to the Democrats. One source says before the veto, Umphrey had not contributed any money.
The bottom line is that the documents suggest that Gore was involved in a fund-raising effort in which there was a "quid pro quo" for contributions.
Democrats will surely say that Clinton would have vetoed the bill in any case because he and the Democrats generally have opposed tort reform — and get a lot of support from trial lawyers as a result.
Interestingly, one of the senators who was most outspoken in opposition to Clinton's veto was one Joseph Lieberman — now, of course, Gore's running mate.
Umphrey is also under grand jury investigation in Texas for his tobacco-fee arrangement, under which he gets $25 million every three months. The Texas attorney general is looking into "misconduct and wrongdoing."
— Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
DialONE911
New member
Now,now,now... We all know there is no story. This is clearly just another of Dubya's dirty tricks. Nothing to see here, move along. 
Twenty five mil every quarter, I could live on that.
Hope it is true and usefull. Also hope Gore and Topper are visiting with uncle when he gets his overdue dynamic entry drug raid.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
Hope it is true and usefull. Also hope Gore and Topper are visiting with uncle when he gets his overdue dynamic entry drug raid.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
DialONE911
New member
Here's the Times story...
Memo Linking Political Donation and Veto Spurs Federal Inquiry
New York Times
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. with RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — Vice President Al Gore attended a Houston dinner in November 1995 to promote a budding relationship between the Democratic Party and a handful of powerful Texas trial lawyers. The relationship blossomed, producing $4 million in donations from the lawyers' firms since 1996. But it also produced some heavy-handed fund- raising
that has recently drawn the scrutiny of federal campaign finance investigators.
At the time of the dinner, the lawyers were deeply troubled by a bill passed by the Republican-led Congress that would have
drastically overhauled the nation's litigation system by restricting the amount of money that people injured by faulty products could win in lawsuits. Two days after the dinner, Democratic officials asked Mr. Gore to call several lawyers who attended the dinner to ask each to give $100,000 to the party.
Mr. Gore was asked to call Walter Umphrey, a prominent plaintiff's lawyer in Beaumont, Tex., but his aides say he did not make the call. Two weeks later, Donald L. Fowler, then Democratic national chairman, was asked to call Mr. Umphrey to press him for a $100,000 check. On a briefing memorandum for the Fowler call, a Democratic Party aide, wrote these words for Mr. Fowler to tell Mr. Umphrey as the reason for the phone call, "Sorry you missed the vice president," and then, "I know" you "will give $100K when the president vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible."
Almost always, the memorandums, known as call sheets, were careful to avoid any mention of executive branch actions or donors' legislative wishes. Soliciting contributions and explicitly linking campaign donations to official actions is improper and, in some cases, illegal.
In an interview, Mr. Fowler said that he never would have used the language on the call sheet and that he could not recall speaking with Mr. Umphrey about campaign gifts. But he acknowledged that at least one conversation with the lawyer was "possible, maybe even probable."
Mr. Fowler criticized the call sheet's message, which was written by a young party aide named Erica Payne. "I don't know why that language was on the call sheet," said Mr. Fowler, who is now chairman of Fowler Communications in South Carolina. "I'm sure I never said anything like that to him or anybody else. It's unwise."
The call sheet's unusual mention of a veto as part of a solicitation of a $100,000 donation has attracted the attention of Robert J. Conrad Jr., the head of the Justice Department's campaign finance task force, who has opened a preliminary investigation into the matter, several law enforcement officials said.
Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for Mr. Gore, said today: "The Republicans and others have had this for more than 1,000 days and no one found it interesting until 1,000 hours before the election. That's curious, isn't it?"
Although it was well known in late 1995 that the president was likely to veto the tort reform bill, its passage by the Republican-controlled Congress greatly concerned trial lawyers.
On May 2, 1996, President Clinton vetoed the bill, which would have set strict limits in both state and federal courts on punitive
damages, the money juries may give beyond awards to compensate victims for their losses. Supporters of the measure, including Democrats who lobbied for almost a decade for legislation to limit liability damages, argued that it would put a cap on multimillion-dollar jury awards that they said added to consumer costs. But the opponents said large jury awards were needed
to prevent companies from selling unsafe products.
Congressional Republican leaders — and even a few Democratic senators — angrily criticized the president, saying the veto was intended to placate donors to the Democrats. Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Mr. Clinton was handing a gift to the generous trial lawyers who were supporting his re-election bid. Donations from those lawyers, he said at the time, "can buy you a Bill Clinton veto."
Among those who criticized the veto was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who had pushed hard for the legislation. In a Wall Street Journal interview that year, Mr. Lieberman, now Mr. Gore's running mate, described the trial lawyers as "a small group of people who are deeply invested in the status quo, who have worked the system very effectively and have had a disproportionate effect."
In the months after the president's veto, Mr. Umphrey's law firm contributed a total of $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee. And in the four years since then, Mr. Umphrey and his firm, Provost & Umphrey, have given more than $700,000 to the Democratic Party, Federal Election Commission records show.
This year, Mr. Gore has continued to woo the Texas trial lawyers, a strategy that has paid enormous dividends to the Democrats. In the years before the May 1996 veto, five prominent Texas lawyers — Mr. Umphrey, John Eddie Williams Jr., the host of the dinner attended by Mr. Gore on Nov. 28, 1995, John O'Quinn, Wayne Reaud and Harold Nix — and their law firms had given $747,700 to the Democrats. Since the veto, the five men and their firms have given a nearly $4 million to the Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington that monitors campaign
finances.
By contrast, according to the center, the five lawyers have given no money to the Republican Party, whose nominee for President, George W. Bush, has pushed aggressively as governor of Texas to limit jury awards and has pledged as a presidential candidate to "curb frivolous lawsuits."
Mr. Umphrey did not return calls to his Beaumont office. Calls to the other four were also not returned.
But Michael E. Tigar, an attorney who represents all five lawyers, denied that his clients' subsequent contributions were linked
in any way to the president's veto. "Tying campaign contributions to legislative or executive action has never been illegal in the United States unless there is proof that the public official extorts the money by threatening to give or withhold action based on the contributions," Mr. Tigar said.
He said Mr. Umphrey and the other Texas lawyers he represents "have repeatedly been asked in many forums whether they have ever given money to a candidate or officials as a quid-pro-quo for official action, and they have repeatedly said under oath that they have never done so."
The call sheet's author, Ms. Payne, declined to comment. Her lawyer, Thomas Dwyer, said Ms. Payne knew Mr. Umphrey was "a major giver" and that he was likely to contribute after the president vetoed the bill. "At the time this memo was written," he said, "she was aware, from the grapevine, that the president was most likely going to veto this bill. At no time did she get inside information from the White House or anyone about this piece of legislation."
Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, called the call sheet's language "extraordinarily ill-advised," saying prosecutors would probably be investigating whether the solicitation violated either a bribery statute or a law prohibiting "illegal gratuities," a "gift" given after an elected official takes a public action.
Mr. Umphrey's contributions are a vivid example of the generosity bestowed on the Democratic Party by the five Texas lawyers, most of whom have become fabulously wealthy from the $3.3 billion in fees they were awarded for their work on a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The lawyers helped engineer a $17.3 billion settlement in 1998 from the tobacco industry for Texas.
"Once the tobacco case was settled, they had a lot more money to give, so they've been very, very generous," said a Texas party official who knows the lawyers. "It's kind of like winning the lottery. All of a sudden you have a lot more money to spend. They're doing the same thing they've always done, but they're doing it on a much bigger scale."
Lawyers and law firms have already contributed nearly $5 million to Mr. Gore's presidential campaign — nearly 10 percent of
all the money the Gore-Lieberman campaign has raised, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mr. Gore obviously is not counting on Texas this November, but it has still served as an important fund- raising stop, in large part because of trial lawyers. In March, for example, the vice president jetted to Houston to attend two fund-raisers that, combined, raised nearly $600,000 for the Democratic National Committee.
One of these fund-raisers reunited Mr. Gore with Mr. Williams, whose law partner, Denman Heard, was host to 125 people who contributed $150,000 to the Democrats. Later, a dinner at the Houston home of H. Lee Godfrey, a partner in Susman Godfrey, a major litigation firm, raised $400,000 for the Democratic Party.
At Mr. Heard's home, the guests listened as Edward G. Rendell, the Democratic National Committee's general chairman, launched into a rousing defense of plaintiff lawyers, saying that much of the nation's gains in consumer safety were due to their efforts.
Mr. Clinton has also attended several fund-raisers in recent months at the homes of trial lawyers. In January, he attended a $5,000-a-plate dinner at the home of Mr. Williams.
Earlier, Mr. Williams also hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign committee
[This message has been edited by DialONE911 (edited September 13, 2000).]
Memo Linking Political Donation and Veto Spurs Federal Inquiry
New York Times
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. with RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — Vice President Al Gore attended a Houston dinner in November 1995 to promote a budding relationship between the Democratic Party and a handful of powerful Texas trial lawyers. The relationship blossomed, producing $4 million in donations from the lawyers' firms since 1996. But it also produced some heavy-handed fund- raising
that has recently drawn the scrutiny of federal campaign finance investigators.
At the time of the dinner, the lawyers were deeply troubled by a bill passed by the Republican-led Congress that would have
drastically overhauled the nation's litigation system by restricting the amount of money that people injured by faulty products could win in lawsuits. Two days after the dinner, Democratic officials asked Mr. Gore to call several lawyers who attended the dinner to ask each to give $100,000 to the party.
Mr. Gore was asked to call Walter Umphrey, a prominent plaintiff's lawyer in Beaumont, Tex., but his aides say he did not make the call. Two weeks later, Donald L. Fowler, then Democratic national chairman, was asked to call Mr. Umphrey to press him for a $100,000 check. On a briefing memorandum for the Fowler call, a Democratic Party aide, wrote these words for Mr. Fowler to tell Mr. Umphrey as the reason for the phone call, "Sorry you missed the vice president," and then, "I know" you "will give $100K when the president vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible."
Almost always, the memorandums, known as call sheets, were careful to avoid any mention of executive branch actions or donors' legislative wishes. Soliciting contributions and explicitly linking campaign donations to official actions is improper and, in some cases, illegal.
In an interview, Mr. Fowler said that he never would have used the language on the call sheet and that he could not recall speaking with Mr. Umphrey about campaign gifts. But he acknowledged that at least one conversation with the lawyer was "possible, maybe even probable."
Mr. Fowler criticized the call sheet's message, which was written by a young party aide named Erica Payne. "I don't know why that language was on the call sheet," said Mr. Fowler, who is now chairman of Fowler Communications in South Carolina. "I'm sure I never said anything like that to him or anybody else. It's unwise."
The call sheet's unusual mention of a veto as part of a solicitation of a $100,000 donation has attracted the attention of Robert J. Conrad Jr., the head of the Justice Department's campaign finance task force, who has opened a preliminary investigation into the matter, several law enforcement officials said.
Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for Mr. Gore, said today: "The Republicans and others have had this for more than 1,000 days and no one found it interesting until 1,000 hours before the election. That's curious, isn't it?"
Although it was well known in late 1995 that the president was likely to veto the tort reform bill, its passage by the Republican-controlled Congress greatly concerned trial lawyers.
On May 2, 1996, President Clinton vetoed the bill, which would have set strict limits in both state and federal courts on punitive
damages, the money juries may give beyond awards to compensate victims for their losses. Supporters of the measure, including Democrats who lobbied for almost a decade for legislation to limit liability damages, argued that it would put a cap on multimillion-dollar jury awards that they said added to consumer costs. But the opponents said large jury awards were needed
to prevent companies from selling unsafe products.
Congressional Republican leaders — and even a few Democratic senators — angrily criticized the president, saying the veto was intended to placate donors to the Democrats. Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Mr. Clinton was handing a gift to the generous trial lawyers who were supporting his re-election bid. Donations from those lawyers, he said at the time, "can buy you a Bill Clinton veto."
Among those who criticized the veto was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who had pushed hard for the legislation. In a Wall Street Journal interview that year, Mr. Lieberman, now Mr. Gore's running mate, described the trial lawyers as "a small group of people who are deeply invested in the status quo, who have worked the system very effectively and have had a disproportionate effect."
In the months after the president's veto, Mr. Umphrey's law firm contributed a total of $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee. And in the four years since then, Mr. Umphrey and his firm, Provost & Umphrey, have given more than $700,000 to the Democratic Party, Federal Election Commission records show.
This year, Mr. Gore has continued to woo the Texas trial lawyers, a strategy that has paid enormous dividends to the Democrats. In the years before the May 1996 veto, five prominent Texas lawyers — Mr. Umphrey, John Eddie Williams Jr., the host of the dinner attended by Mr. Gore on Nov. 28, 1995, John O'Quinn, Wayne Reaud and Harold Nix — and their law firms had given $747,700 to the Democrats. Since the veto, the five men and their firms have given a nearly $4 million to the Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington that monitors campaign
finances.
By contrast, according to the center, the five lawyers have given no money to the Republican Party, whose nominee for President, George W. Bush, has pushed aggressively as governor of Texas to limit jury awards and has pledged as a presidential candidate to "curb frivolous lawsuits."
Mr. Umphrey did not return calls to his Beaumont office. Calls to the other four were also not returned.
But Michael E. Tigar, an attorney who represents all five lawyers, denied that his clients' subsequent contributions were linked
in any way to the president's veto. "Tying campaign contributions to legislative or executive action has never been illegal in the United States unless there is proof that the public official extorts the money by threatening to give or withhold action based on the contributions," Mr. Tigar said.
He said Mr. Umphrey and the other Texas lawyers he represents "have repeatedly been asked in many forums whether they have ever given money to a candidate or officials as a quid-pro-quo for official action, and they have repeatedly said under oath that they have never done so."
The call sheet's author, Ms. Payne, declined to comment. Her lawyer, Thomas Dwyer, said Ms. Payne knew Mr. Umphrey was "a major giver" and that he was likely to contribute after the president vetoed the bill. "At the time this memo was written," he said, "she was aware, from the grapevine, that the president was most likely going to veto this bill. At no time did she get inside information from the White House or anyone about this piece of legislation."
Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, called the call sheet's language "extraordinarily ill-advised," saying prosecutors would probably be investigating whether the solicitation violated either a bribery statute or a law prohibiting "illegal gratuities," a "gift" given after an elected official takes a public action.
Mr. Umphrey's contributions are a vivid example of the generosity bestowed on the Democratic Party by the five Texas lawyers, most of whom have become fabulously wealthy from the $3.3 billion in fees they were awarded for their work on a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The lawyers helped engineer a $17.3 billion settlement in 1998 from the tobacco industry for Texas.
"Once the tobacco case was settled, they had a lot more money to give, so they've been very, very generous," said a Texas party official who knows the lawyers. "It's kind of like winning the lottery. All of a sudden you have a lot more money to spend. They're doing the same thing they've always done, but they're doing it on a much bigger scale."
Lawyers and law firms have already contributed nearly $5 million to Mr. Gore's presidential campaign — nearly 10 percent of
all the money the Gore-Lieberman campaign has raised, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mr. Gore obviously is not counting on Texas this November, but it has still served as an important fund- raising stop, in large part because of trial lawyers. In March, for example, the vice president jetted to Houston to attend two fund-raisers that, combined, raised nearly $600,000 for the Democratic National Committee.
One of these fund-raisers reunited Mr. Gore with Mr. Williams, whose law partner, Denman Heard, was host to 125 people who contributed $150,000 to the Democrats. Later, a dinner at the Houston home of H. Lee Godfrey, a partner in Susman Godfrey, a major litigation firm, raised $400,000 for the Democratic Party.
At Mr. Heard's home, the guests listened as Edward G. Rendell, the Democratic National Committee's general chairman, launched into a rousing defense of plaintiff lawyers, saying that much of the nation's gains in consumer safety were due to their efforts.
Mr. Clinton has also attended several fund-raisers in recent months at the homes of trial lawyers. In January, he attended a $5,000-a-plate dinner at the home of Mr. Williams.
Earlier, Mr. Williams also hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign committee
[This message has been edited by DialONE911 (edited September 13, 2000).]
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Just a matter of time until Janet Reno steps in again and says, "There's not enough evidence to continue this investigation. It will end now."
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
I live here in Beaumont. To 2/3 of this town, he walks on water. To the other 1/3 he's the epitome of the ambulance-chasing scum that characterize trial lawyers. There's no surprise on this story. The dems have been in the pocket of "BIG" trial lawyers for years. They basically run the show now, and it will only get worse as they have figured out how to have legislative fiat by molding society with tort cases.
BTW, Humphrey is also under investigation in the state of TX for soliciting his services to a mom and dad who lost their son in an industrial diving accident - AT THE FUNERAL HOME WHILE THEY WERE VIEWING HIS BODY!!. This guy is truly vile and disgusting. Its not enough that he has millions, but he has to squeeze out a few more with grieving parents.
BTW, Humphrey is also under investigation in the state of TX for soliciting his services to a mom and dad who lost their son in an industrial diving accident - AT THE FUNERAL HOME WHILE THEY WERE VIEWING HIS BODY!!. This guy is truly vile and disgusting. Its not enough that he has millions, but he has to squeeze out a few more with grieving parents.
PaladinX13
New member
On ABCNews.com it's already buried under stories about a bottle of contaminated water (because 3 incidents constitute national news when it affects bottled-water swilling yuppies), Bobby Knight, and the NY Senate debate... you wouldn't even see it unless you went to the Politics section and looked for it. Sigh.
RAE,
It happened. Remember DC mayor Marion Barry??
Sometimes I get the feeling that most of America is like that.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAE:
Most of the time I get the feeling a politician could openly take a bribe or buy drugs on camera and STILL get elected. Man oh man, they might even have illicit sex that goes public and STILL talk about running for another term.
Opps. Seems we been there, done that.
[/quote]
It happened. Remember DC mayor Marion Barry??
Sometimes I get the feeling that most of America is like that.
madison
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAE:
Most of the time I get the feeling a politician could openly take a bribe or buy drugs on camera and STILL get elected. Man oh man, they might even have illicit sex that goes public and STILL talk about running for another term.
Opps. Seems we been there, done that.
[/quote]The guy is dirty. Reno is crooked and corrupt. Clinton--well Clinton is his own definition.
The American voter is smart enough to see through ClintonGore. But then again, they voted him in twice and apparently kept his rearend from be kicked outta office. Maybe the voter is not as smart is I credit them.
If we elect Gore this go around, this country will richly deserve whatever comes its direction. Once is a mistake, twice is a confirmation, three times is a verification that one and two were what was wanted.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
The American voter is smart enough to see through ClintonGore. But then again, they voted him in twice and apparently kept his rearend from be kicked outta office. Maybe the voter is not as smart is I credit them.
If we elect Gore this go around, this country will richly deserve whatever comes its direction. Once is a mistake, twice is a confirmation, three times is a verification that one and two were what was wanted.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964