Yet here is part of an editorial by Senior editor Froma Harrop, from Oct 2, 2005.
I take some poetic license in referring to the House majority leader in the past tense. Others may point out that the House majority leader is presumed innocent until proven guilty. To [Tom DeLay]'s many detractors, the indictment is only more oozing on the cake. To us, whatever happens in Travis County (Texas) district court, DeLay is finished.
This is of course only part of it, because the rest of it would cost money, and since I don't even buy the fishwrap, why would I pay for computerized copies of said fishwrap.
Now wasn't Mr DeLay indicted for "laundering monies" thro campaign contributions? For doing something similar to the following.
As Brown's campaign solicited a total of $25,000 from the Hawaii, Maine and Massachusetts Democratic parties at the end of last year, it asked some of Brown's contributors, in turn, to give money to those state party organizations, the Brown camp has acknowledged.
Yet in this view of the world
The fundraising gambit, ... could carry the Brown campaign close to the fine line that separates lawful third-party campaign solicitations from unlawful ones, according to Larry Noble of The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance monitoring group.
What's the difference? Why the letter after the candidates name of course.
Well once again, why am I even the least bit surprised?
No comments:
Post a Comment