April 11, 2006
No Double Standard Here
There's a story in the the new York Times about a U.S. Senator who has announced legislation and taken direct action to benefit a company that has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Senator's re-election.
Who do you think that might be? There's a clue in how the Times expresses it's opinion of the activities
It is part of a senator's job description to help a major employer in his or her home state, and it is not unusual for that employer to encourage that help or to reciprocate with campaign contributions.
Do you think that sounds rather quid pro quo? Do you think the article is about a Republican or a Democrat?
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 04:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
1
Didn't you know that Hillary is perfect? Even her shady dealings are meant for the good of the people too dumb to know any better.
Thank you New York Times for the reminder that Hillary is smarter than all of us!
Thank you New York Times for the reminder that Hillary is smarter than all of us!
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 11, 2006 10:56 PM (KjUHH)
2
I don't really know what is the worse interpretation. That the Times is giving Hillary a pass on outright bribery or that they are right and this is considered just part of the job of being a Senator.
Either way its pretty disgusting.
Either way its pretty disgusting.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at April 12, 2006 02:36 AM (UquFN)
3
It is part of a senator's job description to help a major employer in his or her home state
Strange. I don't remember reading that anywhere in Article 1.
Strange. I don't remember reading that anywhere in Article 1.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 12, 2006 08:12 PM (GewKN)
22kb generated in 0.0829 seconds; 40 queries returned 180 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
