The FBI just raided Life for Relief and Development, an Islamic charity in the Detroit area. (They have a pleasant name, I must say.) Debbie Schlussel is pleased because she believes they have strong links to a variety of terrorists.
And LIFE, as Schlussel calls it, also has a link to Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott.
In 2002, LIFE led the Saddam Hussein propaganda trip that U.S. Democratic Congressmen David Bonior, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson, which was also funded by Iraqi oil-for-food scam artist Shakir Alkhafaji--who is living, free, in the Detroit suburb of West Bloomfield, despite $70 million in earnings he obtained from doing business with Saddam.
If Schlussel is right, then treason charges may be in order against some of the officers of LIFE
(Hint to "mainstream" journalists: Why not call up Congressman McDermott and ask him about this raid — and his association with the organization, which sounds quite unsavory?
Here's an uninformative article on the raid, if you are wondering what "mainstream" reporters are saying about it.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 18, 2006 05:05 PM | Email ThisAnyone know if McDermott returned the $5K?
Saddam's Cash
After McDimwitt is the one who said the Iraq regime should be taken at "face value" while GWB would lie to the American.
His choice in "friends" has been suspect for awhile.
Posted by: JCM on September 18, 2006 06:01 PMObviously you know nothing of local politics if you even have to ask. An (R) cannot get elected to the House seat on the 7th district. An (R) who does a great job of campaigning and is a viable candidate - like McKenna and Rossi - will still only get about 35% of the vote in the 7th.
Jim McDermott routinely gets 80% of the vote in our district, both from the people who know that he's been convicted of a felony, and from those who don't bother to find out. Sadly, this will be the case regardless who runs against him - unless it's in the Democratic Primary.
So your question reflects more upon the voters in the 7th District than upon the folks here at Sound Politics.
Ask yourself why liberals and Democrats would vote for someone who believes that terrorists have the right to privacy, but the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives does not?
do they think this is just a game? birds of a feather flock together. this guy cares not about HIS safety--fine--but he pulls WA & us with him into his reckless "friendships."
wake up libs--sarin or anthrax does not care about blue or red states. all are equal in its eyes. you trust McDermott to protect our state & ports? sheeeeyatt!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 18, 2006 07:49 PMHow many more friends of Jack Abramoff will be hauled away by the FBI in coming months? (The author of "Freedom Fries" got nailed just last week!) How many more Republican congressmen will serve time? Will Rep. Boehner's frivilous lawsuit be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, or will he plead guilty to taking Jack Abramoff's bribes first?
What else do we in Seattle know that the rest of you don't?
Don't you pay attention? The "claim" that was "proven to be false" has now been proven to be a lie by Joe Wilson, both in terms of what he "debunked" and in terms of who outted his wife.
But I guess that can't be right since the Washington Post is nothing but a mouthpiece of the Bush Administration, right?
Posted by: Marc on September 18, 2006 10:25 PMGet your facts straight before *you* start calling others on the carpet. Oh yeah Diddy Mac, Valerie never was covert either.
So what else don't you know?
Posted by: G Jiggy on September 18, 2006 10:32 PMAl Qaeda grew while Monica blew...
Posted by: South County on September 18, 2006 11:04 PMAl Qaeda struck while our prez was a schmuck
Posted by: CplFlagg on September 18, 2006 11:46 PMJust because a document that says the sun rises in the east is proven to be a forgery doesn't mean the sun rises anywhere else. And someone who believed that forgery -- along with everyone else on both sides of the aisle -- was not, and is not wrong about where the sun rises.
Posted by: TB on September 19, 2006 12:15 AMhttp://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/6-29-06WeldonOpeningStatement.pdf#search=%22weapons%20of%20mass%20destruction%20representative%20iraq%22
BTW, I was in Iraq last year as we were discovering these cannisters. We were not dying for a lie. Thanks for your support.
Posted by: Van on September 19, 2006 01:13 AMGeorges Sada, an Iraqi captain, has mentioned this. Members of Mossad have mentioned this. The only people who haven't mentioned this are the media and leftist morons like Jim McDermott ("Baghdad Jim McDimwit").
Posted by: Sakaki Onsei on September 19, 2006 01:57 AMPosted by CplFlagg
oh yeah I forgot President Bush was supposed to have done more to stop 9/11 during his 8 months of office than Clinton could do in his whole 8 years. At least President Bush IS keeping us safe. No attacks in 5 years, your boy Clinton couldn't claim that in his whole Presidency.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 19, 2006 07:58 AM Ron Graham
Constitution Party
Jackson, Mich.
As for Bush being in office that long, don't forget that the election was held in November and Bush didn't get the nod till around Christmas and wasn't able to get things in shape. Also, keep in mind the malicious vandalism in the White House that occured as the previous administraiton walked out the door.
Posted by: swatter on September 19, 2006 08:35 AMIt is a large bloated slug of a city, more akin to a 40-something male still living with his parents and sponging off them while spending hours net surfing.
Posted by: platypus on September 19, 2006 09:00 AMI think that that picture definately shows how such an association can taint an entire government.
Clearly an official who would go to Saddam's Bagdad cannot tell enemies from friends.
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on September 19, 2006 10:29 AMNew page on www.berenforcongress.com - check out http://www.berenforcongress.com/compare.html
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 19, 2006 10:50 AMhttp://www.lucatelese.it/diariodiguerra/default.htm
Posted by: J.C. on September 19, 2006 10:53 AMMcD reminds me of cruelly ridiculing your spouse at a cocktail party just for a cheap laugh; tells all around you reams abut your character and integrity; what a putz;
and--whose payroll is he on? ours? guess loyality is relative; sell out your country and troops and call it "discourse" or "free speech" or "constructive criticism" so you can sleep at night. libs will surely be our collective death;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 19, 2006 10:57 AMI just checked out your compare section. How do you plan to pay for everything that you want to 'increase funding' for while 'greatly decreasing taxes'? are you a fiscal conservative? What happened to the fiscal conservative in the party.
Posted by: J.C. on September 19, 2006 10:59 AMAlso, per the additional comment under "Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues, Part 3,":
"There should be across-the-board spending cuts in almost every program, with rare exceptions such as defense, homeland security, and emergency preparedness. No program should ever be increased without a dollar-for-dollar decrease elsewhere in the budget."
Compare McDermott's responses to all these questions. McDermott plans to pay for everything he wants to increase funding for by decreasing defense spending, raising taxes, and limiting deductions.
sartre, you say that like it's a bad thing. Glad I live on the east side and I am proud to have GWB in the White House. I was born in Seattle and can tell you that for all that counts, Bellevue is superior to Seattle in every way except restaurants.
Posted by: Jeffro on September 19, 2006 12:33 PMIt is hard for me to be proud of someone who isn't really a conservative. We need fiscal conservation or we will leave our country bankrupt for our children. there is no more important conservative ideal than this and Bush has ignored it completely. what makes Bush a conservative?
Posted by: J.C. on September 19, 2006 12:48 PM"Georges Sada, an Iraqi captain, has mentioned this. Members of Mossad have mentioned this. The only people who haven't mentioned this are the media and leftist morons like Jim McDermott ("Baghdad Jim McDimwit"). "
Got any proof of that? Like, maybe a chemical trace or two? (Trucking dangerous chemicals vast distances through a war zone should leave some evidence, no?)
McDermott said it, and President Bush then made it true. McDermott's critics, in refusing to admit reality, simply testify to their own howling lack of character. (As if their name-calling hadn't already proven that point!)
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 19, 2006 07:40 PMYou are consumed by apathy and disinformation - who undoubtedly supports the agenda of George Soros and embraces the hammer and sickle. I question if you really care about the future of this country.
Yes, that image of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand -- one of the most frequently downloaded pictures on the internet-- shows what a fool President Reagan really was. (Mr. Rumsfeld works only for administrations which are unable to craft a foreign policy worthy of our great country.)
"Get your facts straight before *you* start calling others on the carpet. Oh yeah Diddy Mac, Valerie never was covert either."
Of course she wasn't. That's why President Bush never promised to fire any White House official who had revealed her identity. He never appointed a Special Prosecutor to find those officials. That Prosecutor never indicted a senior White House offical for lying to said inquiry. What great knowledge of current events you conservatives have!
Do you two enjoy making it this easy for us liberals?
Jim McDermott knew well the character of the man he criticized. He knew that a person of such low character would ignite a war on false pretenses, and he said so. We who fully support Rep. McDermott will always be proud of his efforts to stop this needless war.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 19, 2006 10:09 PMThank you for having the character to admit that President Bush cited a forged document during his 2003 State of the Union Address. (One of the many events which fulfilled Rep. McDermott's prophecy.) I wish that more modern-day 'conservatives' could speak to facts, instead of reflexively resorting to name-calling.
But, to continue your analogy: why would a reputable scientist used faked data, if he or she had plenty of real data to support a theory about solar movement? Does that not imply a certain failure of character? Any scientist who published fake data would, upon getting caught, be drummed out of his or her field. (Even if such lies did not cost a single American life.) The scientists who discovered the fakery would receive accolades. Thus, Dr. McDermott continues to receive support from Seattle's electorate.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 19, 2006 10:27 PMActually, he normally gets about 75%, without running a single campaign advertisement. After the first attack by Rep. Boehner, Jim received 88% of the vote. (He publicly stated that if the attacks continued in such force, he'd receive "99%".)
As for the supposed "felony", which grand jury indicted him? Which jury convicted him? Who pronounced the sentence? Perhaps you could inform us ignorant citizens of the 7th District of these "facts".
Of course, it could just have been a frivilous, civil lawsuit, filed by an unethical "leader" who can't stand having his immorality revealed. Just maybe.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 19, 2006 10:33 PMBoth a US District Court and a Federal Appeals Court found that McDermott violated Federal law.
Here are the articles, since I'm sure you didn't bother to read them in the first place:
October 29, 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002076174_mcdermott29m.html
In a harshly worded decision received by attorneys this week, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan said McDermott's "willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice in this case."
In August, Judge Hogan determined McDermott "participated in an illegal transaction" when he accepted the tape from the Florida couple, and his actions weren't protected by the First Amendment.
"The Court finds that (McDermott's) conduct was malicious in that he intentionally disclosed the tape to the national media in an attempt to politically harm the participants through an invasion of their privacy," Hogan wrote.
March 28, 2006:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002895236_webmcdermott28.html
A federal appeals court ruled today that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
Paddy Mac, you're welcome to skip your morning lattes and contribute to Jim McDermott's legal defense fund! Who knows, maybe he'll take his appeal up to the Supreme Court of the United States! I wonder what John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and the rest of those fine justices will think of his Federal crime?
Thanks for pointing out my error.
Do you walk right into punches all the time, or only when trying to prove a point? :)
Posted by: Larry on September 20, 2006 12:16 PMYou're welcome to provide your rationale as to why two members of the U.S. House of Representatives have no right to privacy when talking to each other on cellphones, while a person placing a phone call to a known terrorist in a foreign country does have a right to privacy.
But regardless of your rationale, I'm quite certain that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman would disagree with you.
Posted by: Larry on September 20, 2006 12:19 PMI'll repeat my inquiries from a different thread, since you popped up here:
Please tell me, Paddy Mac - what has Jim McDermott done for you? I live in his district. He's brought home negligable, if any, federal funding, he's considered a pariah on Capitol Hill (even among many members of his own party) so he'll continue to bring home nothing.
If you vote for him only because he calls President Bush a liar - why is he any more qualified than you or anyone else who votes for him?
You call President Bush a liar; and you (I hope) HAVEN'T been found guilty of violating a federal law, with knowing misconduct that rises to the level of malice, by participating in an illegal transaction in an attempt to harm other people.
How is Jim McDermott more qualified for the office than YOU, Paddy Mac? I'd say he's probably less qualified - shouldn't you hold him to a higher standard than yourself?
Posted by: Larry on September 20, 2006 12:27 PMI encourage you to read this interview with Wall Street Journal writer and lawyer, Ted Boutrous:
http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_090106_b.html
and if you want a some real meat on the court case look at this WALL STREET JOURNAL article:
Posted by: OLE on September 20, 2006 03:35 PM
While the subpoenas and contempt orders that came out of the Valerie Plame leak investigation sent a shiver through journalists and other champions of a free press, an equally chilling lawsuit between two congressmen slowly plodded through the courts, barely noticed. No longer. Now, the D.C. Circuit has made a ruling in this dispute that, if it stands, will blow a hole through the First Amendment.
The strange case of Boehner v. McDermott began with a conference call between GOP leaders in December 1996, to decide how to deal with the ethics charges against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. Rep. (now House Majority Leader) John Boehner participated by cell phone.
A Florida couple intercepted the call on a police scanner and taped it, in violation of federal wiretapping laws. They gave a copy of the tape to Jim McDermott, a Democratic member of the House ethics committee, who gave it to the press, which widely reported on it. Mr. Boehner sued, claiming that Mr. McDermott had invaded his right to privacy and violated federal wiretapping laws.
A few years later, as Mr. Boehner's lawsuit progressed, the Supreme Court decided in Bartnicki v. Vopper that it would violate "the core purposes of the First Amendment" to use the wiretapping statute to punish defendants who had "lawfully" obtained and broadcast a tape of a telephone call that had been illegally recorded by someone else. Such punishment, it said, would impose "sanctions on the publication of truthful information of public concern."
Nevertheless, in March of this year a panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld a $60,000 judgment for statutory and punitive damages against Mr. McDermott. (Mr. Boehner is now claiming an additional $500,000 in attorney's fees.) Since Mr. McDermott supposedly knew that the tape had been illegally recorded when he received it, the court ruled that he got it "unlawfully" and could be punished, like someone who "is guilty of receiving stolen property."
Judge David Sentelle dissented, emphasizing the rule's potentially sweeping ramifications: "No one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest" because -- just like Mr. McDermott -- everyone, including the journalists who wrote about the tape and "every reader of the information in the newspapers," knew that it had been illegally recorded.
The full en banc D.C. Circuit has now agreed to rehear the case, and it is imperative that the court reject the panel's ruling. While Mr. Boehner claimed that his right to privacy trumped Mr. McDermott's First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court in Bartnicki declared: "Privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. . . . The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and of press."
The high court has made clear over and over again -- usually in cases involving the press -- that, absent the most extraordinary and compelling circumstances, as long as a citizen breaks no law in obtaining truthful information of public concern, he cannot be punished for publishing it, even if he knew that his source broke the law. A "receipt of stolen property" exception would overturn this important First Amendment doctrine, threatening the ability of the press to obtain and disseminate news.
As a matter of history, tradition and ordinary newsgathering, the press sometimes obtains vital, highly newsworthy information from sources who may have broken the law, or some legal duty while providing it. Indeed, many of the most significant news stories have been based on information that the source may have acquired or communicated illegally, including the Pentagon Papers case, Watergate, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, stories about the health hazards of tobacco and, more recently, articles about CIA secret prisons in Europe and the NSA surveillance program.
Nevertheless, under Boehner, a reporter who obtains important information could be subjected to punishment, simply because he knew or suspected that the source had broken the law in giving it to him. Such a doctrine would severely hamper traditional newsgathering and reporting activities, and it would inject significant uncertainty into the reporting process.
Unless overturned, Boehner v. McDermott will embolden the government and private citizens to be even more aggressive in taking legal actions that aim to punish and deter truthful speech. This is already happening: The Department of Justice has cited Boehner as "especially instructive" in justifying its prosecution of two former lobbyists of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for receiving and then discussing with reporters national defense information, in alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Those same prosecutors, as well as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have refused to rule out the possibility that the government could launch similar criminal charges against journalists who receive and publish classified information.
It can be extremely tempting to scale back on traditional First Amendment freedoms in the area of national security during war time. The government does have the right to protect information in the name of national security and other compelling interests, and to impose secrecy obligations on government officials to avoid harmful disclosures. But the First Amendment, as a check on government power and an instrument of self-government, tasks the press with ferreting out information that the government wants to keep secret.
That information, after all, really belongs to the people, who have delegated the power to govern to elected officials. Sometimes the only way the public can learn about government wrongdoing, or questionable government policies, is through leaks. The late Yale law professor Alexander Bickel famously called this built-in constitutional tension the "unruly contest" between the press and the government. Boehner v. McDermott would stack the deck in this contest between government secrecy and free speech. It should be rejected. The interests at stake involve all Americans -- not just two feuding congressmen.
Mr. Boutrous has filed a friend-of-the court brief in the Boehner case for 18 news organizations, including Dow Jones, publisher of this newspaper.
Used with premission - Copyright 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
BFD...
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 20, 2006 06:39 PM(I don't drink coffee.) The Wall Street Journal, and more than a dozen other news organizations, have supported Rep. McDermott because of the novel legal theory behind Rep. Boehner's suit. If the courts uphold his logic, then NO ONE will ever legally discuss the contents of that telephone conversation (besides the persons who participated in it). Therefore, if Rep. Boehner wins, he might sue YOU, for your quotes! How do you feel about your conservative hero now? (Say the right thing, or he may drag you into court!)
Yes, the recent additions to our Supreme Court may indeed discard centuries of legal our precedent, just to hand victory to a political opportunist. This was one of many reasons that I opposed their nominations. If they act as you've implied, then they are NOT conservatives, but radicals of the most unstable kind. I can't see any citizen welcoming that result.
"You're welcome to provide your rationale as to why two members of the U.S. House of Representatives have no right to privacy when talking to each other on cellphones..."
Thank you for pointing this out! The persons talking were all elected officials, discussing public policy. (Specifically, how to undermine the ethical foundation of our House.) How then could they have any expectation of privacy? If a group of King County Records & Elections officials discussed how best to respond to critics, and later claimed a right to privacy, how do you think SoundPolitics (and real news outfits) would respond?
BTW, if they had been discussing some non-public business, like Newt Gingrich screwing Callista Bisek whilst pimping his "family values'" to the "values voters", then some expectation of privacy might exist. (Then again, maybe not: Bisek was a House Republican staffer at the time. OK, let's say the congressmen were having a generic conversation, about how stupid and clueless those "values voters" are, and how easily Gingrich had swindled these Bible-banging rubes out of their votes. That would definitely have been protected.)
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 20, 2006 07:30 PMInteresting, how a conservative now defines pork-barrel spending as success. It shows how thoroughly power has corrupted modern conservatism. That fact alone justifies voting for a liberal.
As for what he's done for me, well, he's done plenty. He sponsored the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which opened new markets for American products overseas. For most of the time he has represented the 7th district, I have worked at companies which realized half or more of their income from foreign trade. Of the 50 states, Washington's economy depends most upon foreign trade.
BTW, McDermott did not call Bush a liar in Baghdad. He said that he believed that Bush would mislead the American people. The fulfillment of that prediction has come many times, and only the most die-hard supporters of this president now believe otherwise.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 20, 2006 07:37 PM"If a group of King County Records & Elections officials discussed how best to respond to critics, and later claimed a right to privacy, how do you think SoundPolitics (and real news outfits) would respond?"
If said elections officials, even Ron Sims and Dean Logan, were discussing this in a private phone call while Stefan Sharkansky chased one of them down the highway at 60 mph recording the phone call across multiple cell phone towers - I'd call Stefan and anyone else who spread that news on the carpet. Wouldn't you? Apparently not. Apparently you think it would be okay for Stefan to eavesdrop on and record a private conversation and then publish that recording as 'news.' Bully for you. Can I assume that you think the same thing about recording cell phone calls to known terrorists overseas?
"Therefore, if Rep. Boehner wins, he might sue YOU, for your quotes!"
Oh, no. Not that. I'm shaking in my shoes. I'm terrified. You've turned my whole values system upside down. Not.
"Interesting, how a conservative now defines pork-barrel spending as success."
Hmmmm...pork barrel spending? I'd think that some federal assistance to our ports and to our transportation infrastructure would be a GOOD thing. I think it's in the best interest of our nation that Seattle and Tacoma have adequate security and can maintain a consistent flow of goods and services to our northwest inland empire. However, you and I both know that Jim McDermott will never be able to gain traction on these issues in Congress, because he's made himself an outcast. Apparently you think that federal assistance to critical Seattle/Washington/Pacific Northwest initiatives that help our nation would be 'pork barrel spending'. You're welcome to that opinion, but don't expect many people to share it with you.
"As for what he's done for me, well, he's done plenty. He sponsored the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act"
Jim McDermott has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 18 years, and you can name one legislative action that he's sponsored. You've just DAMNED him with FAINT PRAISE, Paddy Mac.
Eighteen years in Congress, and you referenced legislation from his 12th year in Congress, and nothing from the last 5 years?? What's he been doing? Oh, I remember, he's been glad-handing vicious dictators while impugning the integrity of our President. Hah. You just proved my point. As I asked before - do you always walk right into punches, or only while you're trying to prove a point?
Even though I agree with alphabet soup, I'll call neither you nor Jim McDermott a POS, Paddy Mac. I'll merely point out that you came to Jim McDermott's defense without any ammunition whatsoever.
We'll have to agree to disagree on these points, Paddy Mac. It's been fun pointing out how little you think Jim has done for you.
I suggest a new name: Jim McDerMOOT.
What's the definition of (Jim McDer)MOOT? So hypothetical as to be meaningless.
By the way, I did ask why Jim McDerMOOT is more qualified than YOU. You didn't answer, and that's an answer unto itself.
I've met Jim McDerMOOT while getting my morning coffee on Queen Anne Avenue. You know what I said to him? He looked at me and said 'Hello.' I said 'Hello! Good morning!' He said 'Good morning to you.' I ordered my coffee, while he walked home.
Even though I think the man is a reprehensible person and politician, I didn't denigrate myself by verbally attacking him.
I certainly hope that you could maintain the same sense of dignity and decorum if you ever met President (or Former President) George W Bush while getting your morning...whatever you drink.
Posted by: Larry on September 20, 2006 09:12 PMThen he committed the crime that the original eaversdroppers did. They pled guilty. (Would Mr. S.?)
The legal point, as the long article from The Wall Street Journal makes clear, is what happened afterwards. If the Supreme Court rules in Rep. Boehner's favor, then NO ONE can ever quote from that tape, and EVERYONE who has since discussed the contents can also be sued. Even worse, an unethical government official can sue his critics for exposing his unethical behavior. I seriously doubt that anyone who posts here wants Governor Gregoire or Jim McDermott to have that power. (These are illustrative examples only. They do not imply that I believe these two persons to have behaved unethically.)
Finally, if the majority party in the House does not allow the minority party to pass legislation, it does not pass. If they so blockade our House for many years, that says a lot more about the governing party than it does about their critics. If the ruling party slights Puget Sound's ports because they can't stand one of our Representatives, then they have placed their petty hatreds above our nation's welfare, and this becomes yet another reason to vote them out of office.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 20, 2006 09:44 PMNo, you'd asked me this:
"If you vote for him only because he calls President Bush a liar - why is he any more qualified than you or anyone else who votes for him?"
I voted for him for many reasons, and therefore, the condition you set for me to answer was not satisfied. I therefore obeyed the premise of your question, and did not answer it. Do you always attack people for taking your words seriously?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 20, 2006 09:53 PMComment # 61 at 12:27 pm:
"How is Jim McDermott more qualified for the office than YOU, Paddy Mac?"
I don't see any conditions in that question.
"We'll have to agree to disagree on these points, Paddy Mac. It's been fun pointing out how little you think Jim has done for you."
Next up, Paddy Mac getting in the last word:
Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2006 12:18 AMI will respond to your question. I vote for McDermott and democrats generally simply because I agree with his/there issue positions. Single payer healthcare, spending iraqi war money on domestic programs and homeland security like screening cargo, borders, and enacting the 9/11 commission recomendations, removing tax cuts for the top 1%, ending billions of giveaways to oil companies as they are making historical profits; providing money for scholarship and pell grants and fully funding NCLB; funding and giving incentives for renewable and alternative energy sources that will provide jobs, protect the enivironment, and limit our dependence on foreign oil thus making us more secure, and ending corporate welfare.
Why do you vote for Bush? He isn't a fiscal conservative. Government has grown and become even more wasteful. More illegal immigrants have came in the past 6 years than came in the entire Clinton admin. Abortion rates have climbed. Medicare PLan D is a disaster. so why?
Posted by: OLE on September 21, 2006 03:28 PMThe Africa Growth & Opportunity Act continues to create better economic conditions for peoples the world over. My own employer will soon send more of us high-paying professionals to visit new customers in sub-Saharan Africa, and I think that McDermott's contribution to our prosperity is not "little". You may have a life of ease, and good for you if you do; but I have to work for a living, and I'd rather have a better-paying job.
In other areas, Jim has done very little indeed, and I'm very proud to admit it. In the last five years, he has not voted to increase our nation's debt; he has not voted to enable a needless war, and he has not taken bribes. Just by doing nothing, he has provided us with better representation than the majority of our country received during this period. It may be nothing, but it's more than the folks in eastern Ohio got from their congressman.
Well, I've gotta go get some Freedom Fries! (Freedom from Corruption, that is! Thanks, Jim!)
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 21, 2006 07:21 PM