Justice Dept. Deems Sen. Stevens Too Corrupt To Participate In U.S. Attorney Scandal
Justice Dept. Deems Sen. Stevens Too Corrupt To Participate In U.S. Attorney Scandal
Yesterday, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the FBI and a federal grand jury are investigating how, in 2000, “Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) jacked his house off the ground, inserted a new first story and placed the old first floor on top, thanks to the help of a top executive at local oil company Veco Corp. who hired at least one key contractor to complete the feat of a job.”
The remodeling is suspicious because two former Veco Corp. executives recently pleaded guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges, which includes paying $242,000 in illegitimate consulting fees to Stevens’s son, Ben, formerly president of Alaska’s state senate. Additionally, the Veco executives’ guilty pleas noted that “Veco was not in the business of residential construction or remodeling.”
Neither Ben nor Sen. Stevens have been charged. But actions by the federal government to keep the senator away from the investigation indicate that he may be involved. In Aug. 2006, the Bush administration took the unusual step of blocking the Sen. Stevens from having any say in choosing the new U.S. attorney for the state:
Stevens has been trying to get an Alaska lawyer appointed U.S. attorney here, but for one reason or another the people he recommended have been knocked out, a spokesman for the senator said Wednesday.
Instead, the Justice Department brought in a prosecutor from Pittsburgh. A Stevens aide told the Anchorage Daily News that the senator was “furious at the way the attorney general handled this.” In Sept. 2006, the Justice Department recused the entire U.S. attorney’s office in Alaska from the case, explaining that it would be run out of the department’s Public Integrity section.
David Postman of the Seattle Times reports that former Republican U.S. attorney Wev Shea also noted that President Bush probably personally approved the raid on Ben Stevens’s office:
I can guarantee you, virtually, that in the daily briefings that Bob (Mueller) has with the president that the president was briefed and gave his OK on this. It’s not something I say lightly.
ThinkProgress has also confirmed that Scott Leathard, son of Veco president Pete Leathard, continues to serve on Sen. Stevens’s Washington staff. Stevens has received more than $70,000 in political donations from VECO employees.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
94 Responses to “Justice Dept. Deems Sen. Stevens Too Corrupt To Participate In U.S. Attorney Scandal”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
George W. Bush took illegal donations.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI wonder if Stevens can get VECO to help build him a bridge from his jacked-up house direct to Leavenworth Penitentiary? Talk about a bridge to nowhere…
May 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pmLooks like Duke Cunningham will have another kindred soul in the slammer with him. And deservedly so. If you haven’t read “The Wrong Stuff” yet, dart out to a bookstore and buy it. Prepare to soften your forehead with the butt of your hand while reading it however. Breathtaking is the only word that sums it up well.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pmTed Stevens (R-AK) jacked his house off the ground
You said “Jacked off” huh huh huh, huh huh huh.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pmTed Stevens (R-AK) jacked his house off the ground
May 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pmAm I wrong in wondering about why the DoJ is running search warrants past the president?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“Ted Stevens (R-AK) jacked his house off the ground”
he did it so he could install a series of tubes to get access to the internets.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI’d loved to see old Senator Stevens being frog marched into custody. Is there a Federal Prison in Alaska?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#6, I was thinking the same thing. I thought the DOJ was supposed to be independent of the White House.
I hate living in George Bush’s Messed Up Version of America.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pmTed Stevens’ house is MADE OF TUBES !!!
(thanks to Digg for this one-liner)
May 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#9
You thought wrong. The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pmThe justice department should be investigating Kerry’s illegal election activities.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4244.html
John Kerry spent $1.4 million more than federal rules allowed during his 2004 presidential bid, primarily on customizing two campaign planes, according to a draft audit by the Federal Election Commission.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pmTed jacked “it” off due to the fact that the Alaskan permafrost is melting, threatening foundations (global warming).
May 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pmGeorge W. Bush jacked the shareholders of Arbusto and Harken, with the help of oil executives.
m12 jacked off in a Men’s Warehouse, with the help of oil executives.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pmIs he one of those who are preaching ‘Family Values’ ?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThe justice department should be investigating Kerry’s illegal election activities.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4244.html
John Kerry spent $1.4 million more than federal rules allowed during his 2004 presidential bid, primarily on customizing two campaign planes, according to a draft audit by the Federal Election Commission.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Oh st*pid little dum sh*t. This *is* an investigation, by the commission that has the *authority* to do something about it - the FEC. And if it’s found to be true, then they can either appeal or pay a fine!!! Wow, how *serious*!!!!
While we’re at it, why haven’t you called for an investigation into the OHIO electioneering of 2004 by Bush? Two election officials have already gone to JAIL for rigging the recount. But no investigation into Bush/Rove and the GOP involvement. Wonder why?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pmYou thought wrong. The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Yes, but run *independently*, until you partisan crooks got in charge. You dum bass *ssh*le.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pmComment by m12 — Agreed, and throw Kerry in jail if he broke the law. Regardless of party, all the crooks that have intentionally defrauded the taxpayers need to go to prison. That appears to be the difference between you and me, you will fight tooth and nail to make these crooks that align with your party affiliation seem ok. I don’t care what party they are from, bring on the grand jury.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#11. Actually, you thought wrong. While the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, its officers are traditionally devoted to being independent of the White House, insofar as fulfilling its duties of investigating and prosecuting crime.
DOJ rejected Nixon’s argument (which was rejected again by the S. Court) that the Executive could not commit a crime.
Finally, you may recall this little thing called the Constitution, or this concept of the United States of America, from your pre-traitorous days. Strictly speaking, all officers and employees of the Executive Branch, while serving at the pleasure of the President, are sworn to serving the Constitution and American people. That means that a DOJ employee is supposed to prosecute a President who has committed a crime, even if that means that that President may fire the employee as a result.
Patriotism, loyalty to one’s country, I understand these are foreign concepts to scumbags like you, but understand that if you choose to live in our country, you must follow our rule of law. If you don’t like, get the hell out and move to Chile or some such pseudo-fascist state, where things will be more to your liking.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pmComment by tarazan — Is he republican? Yep! Then you can be assurd that he toes the family values line of crap that these people expouse. Here’s what we should be talking about. Why are there so many Republican’s that have been, or being convicted of such crimes as spousal abuse, child molestation, rape, and defrauding the government? And why are so many republicans gay, yet rail against gay rights? This is the party of oxymoran’s.
http://www.unknownnews.net/RepublicanFamilyValues.html
Take a look at this link. Very interesting. m12 do you care to comment?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pmComment by Jake-o-bin — Well said.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThat appears to be the difference between you and me, you will fight tooth and nail to make these crooks that align with your party affiliation seem ok. I don’t care what party they are from, bring on the grand jury. Comment by JTitor — May 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
The other difference, is wacos like m12 will “fabricate” a smear, and something irrelevant, while using that “fake” situation to justify their own side’s *real* criminality. It’s sad how to a wingnut like m12, his side “can do no wrong”, and if they do, his/her/its justification is “but the other side does it”. It doesn’t matter if it’s corruption, murder, torture, terrorism - as long as someone else is doing it - it’s fine for m12 to set aside his/her/its morality and adopt theirs. Sounds like that little t*rd Hendler - doesn’t it?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmWhile we’re at it, why haven’t you called for an investigation into the OHIO electioneering of 2004 by Bush? Two election officials have already gone to JAIL for rigging the recount. But no investigation into Bush/Rove and the GOP involvement. Wonder why?
Maybe because there’s no proof of any involvement by the President?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAnti-abortion advocate says he boinked farm animals
Neal Horsley (anti-abortion activist) on Hannity & Colmes
Alan Colmes: “You had sex with animals?”
Neal Horsley: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”
Alan Colmes: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
Neal Horsley: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”
Alan Colmes: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”
Neal Horsley: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm… You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. … If it’s warm and it’s damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it.â€
m12 do you care to comment?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#17
Run independently? Like when Jimmy Carter fired US attorney David Marston for investigating a Democratic Congressman?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pmYes, but run *independently*, until you partisan crooks got in charge. You dum bass *ssh*le.
Like when Jimmy Carter fired US attorney Marston in the middle of a Presidential term for investigating a Democratic Congressman?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pmGreat post, Zippy!
Why would a homeowner pay a huge amount of money to reverse floors? A first floor becomes a second floor. Crazy! Many homeowners have a ranch-style house, and sometimes do add an additional floor. Not often, though. But the first floor remains the first floor.
My last name isn’t Toll, Pulte, Centex, Webb, or Ryland but this remodeling job is nuts. In fact, Stevens must be nuts.
I’ve head of flipping homes, but this is REAL flipping.
OBVIOUSLY, STEVENS’ ELEVATOR DOESN’T GO TO THE TOP FLOOR.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#24
Comment on what? Being Republican doesn’t make them immune to the homosexual disease.
Doesn’t matter to me; I don’t vote GOP because of family values.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#28-
No you obviously vote GOP because you hate America. Get the f*ck out.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm#29
You’re the one who hates our President. Maybe you should leave. And take San Franscisco with you.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm#18
Right. Funny then, how your party re-elected Mr. Cold Cash Jefferson in Louisiana despite his scandals.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pmJimmy Carter fired David Marston in 1979.
Harry Truman had low approval ratings.
Terrorists are casing your house right now. I’m not kidding. Go look.
Oh yeah, Clinton did it too.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pmAlways the confusion on the right. The president wraps himself in the flag, and becomes the US. I will say it once more there m12, George W. Bush is not the USA. I love what our country did during WWII, and I hope we can return to that at some point. So far we haven’t
May 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#30. You prove my point.
San Francisco is America. And the President is not. I can dislike a President for breaking laws, etc., and that doesn’t mean I hate America.
But you hating San Francisco, by definition, means you hate America.
Or, slowly, for you. George W. Bush is not a monarch. He is not a sovereign. He is an elected official. No different than Nancy Pelosi, other than what position he holds, and what powers are designated to it.
You, sir, are a dirty, traitorous fascist. And your comments about San Francisco (I don’t live there) prove that you should get the f*ck out of our country with your retarded neo-fascist views. Go home to El Salvador. Lil b*tch.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYou’re the one who hates our President. Maybe you should leave. And take San Franscisco with you. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
San Francisco is in alignment with the 70%+ of Americans that finds the “President” lacking. What, you believe you 30%s are the ONLY Americans? BAHAHAA, what a dum bass!
May 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pmRight. Funny then, how your party re-elected Mr. Cold Cash Jefferson in Louisiana despite his scandals. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Actually it was the people of his district that re-elected him. Unlike your party of f*cking children (yes that phrase does have two meanings), corruption, greed, vice, and hypocrisy - the Democrats STRIPPED Jefferson of his leadership. Compare that to your party - that only REWARDS corruption and failure with PROMOTIONS!!! Dum bass!
May 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pmSan Francisco is in alignment with the 70%+ of Americans that finds the “President†lacking. What, you believe you 30%s are the ONLY Americans? BAHAHAA, what a dum bass!
Yeah, whatever. They weren’t in aligmnent with the unprecedented record 62 million Americans who cast their ballot for George W. Bush in 2004.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pmActually it was the people of his district that re-elected him. Unlike your party of f*cking children (yes that phrase does have two meanings), corruption, greed, vice, and hypocrisy - the Democrats STRIPPED Jefferson of his leadership. Compare that to your party - that only REWARDS corruption and failure with PROMOTIONS!!! Dum bass!
Yeah, and the people of his district are members of your party, who decided to reward corruption.
If Miss Nancy wants to deal with him appropriately, expel him from the House.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pmIf Miss Nancy wants to deal with him appropriately, expel him from the House.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
If the investigation of Rep. Jefferson results in an indictment, then I agree that the will of the people of his district shold be overturned and he should be expelled. Just like I thought should have happened when Tom Delay was indicted. Did you beat the drum for that expulsion, m12? As I recall, the House Republicans actually changed the leadership rules to allow a Congressman to serve as Majority Leader even if he’d been indicted. Did that manuever scandalize you, seeing as you’re such a tough “rule of law” proponent?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm#39, M12 like the remaining neofascist deadenders, does not believe in the rule of law, he believes in Banana Republicanism. He hates San Francisco, he hates the Constitution, he hates the fact that the North won the Civil War, he hates Democrats, he hates the history of this country over the last 100 years except for Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and even then he hates most of this country from those time periods.
In short, he hates America and really should get the f*ck out. He is a traitorous scumbag who probably laughed when 9/11 happened, because it happened to a liberal city. He, like the remaining deadenders, should be banished or imprisoned. The latter is somewhat likely, since the deadenders have a predisposition to boogering young boys, which is illegal in this country, even for Republican judges.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#39
Tom Delay didn’t have to be expelled. He resigned.
I thought the Democrats were supposed to be more ethical, eh?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pmTom Delay didn’t have to be expelled. He resigned.
I thought the Democrats were supposed to be more ethical, eh?
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
To avoid being expelled.
The democrats are more ethical.
But you haven’t noticed - because you are too busy defending your own.
What about Hastert and his little land deal?
What about the recent FBI Raids on the rest of your *culture of corruption*?
All you have is Jefferson? BAHAHAHA, how PATHETIC!!!
That *ALONE* proves the Democrats are more ethical - dum bass!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm#41, sorry to be your fact check again, but DeLay didn’t resign until he was indicted. Jefferson has not yet been indicted. Regardless, this doesn’t change the fact that there’s not much Pelosi can do, but that she has done more than the GOP did (refuse him committee assignments, etc.). It also doesn’t change the fact that you are traitorous swine who should be shot or deported.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:25 pmTom Delay didn’t have to be expelled. He resigned.
I thought the Democrats were supposed to be more ethical, eh?
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Tom Delay was indicted on Sept. 29, 2005. He finally resigned from the House in June, 2006. In the eight full months between those dates, were you calling for his expulsion? That’s the question you ignored, for some reason. (Maybe you were distracted?)
If you are suggesting that Democrats should hold themselves to higher standards than Republicans hold themselves, I will agree. And I think it’s clearly the case.
Of course, I believe that both parties should hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, but that doesn’t seem to work for Republicans for some reason.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#42
Land deals and FBI raids?
Are you referring to Harry Reid and John Murtha?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pmYeah, whatever. They weren’t in aligmnent with the unprecedented record 62 million Americans who cast their ballot for George W. Bush in 2004. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Yeah, well America wanted to give him a chance to fix his f*ck-ups - we’re a generous nation. And beside, when you have a *growing* population, you really think 62 million is “unprecedented”? I guess the 59 million that Kerry received, despite a Swiftboat smearing, and an entire media outlet attack on him is *incredibly* unprecedented!!!
So were all of the election problems in Ohio, and two election officials being sent to *jail* for election fraud?
A better *alignment* would be 2006, where in an unprecedented election Democrats didn’t lose a single seat?
Or an even better situation, is where over 50% of Americans now say the are or *lean* Democratic, compared to only about 34% that are or *lean* Republican?
You’re delusional - child.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm#43
You mean the same Pelosi who tried to put a judge who was impeached of bribery (which she voted for) in charge of our national intelligence?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pmLand deals and FBI raids?
Are you referring to Harry Reid and John Murtha?
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
BAHAHA, yeah, SURE!!!! What, it’s now *illegal* for Reid to invest in real estate in a boom market in his own state? Try to compare a NON-STARTER smear, with a situation where the guy in CHARGE of the ROAD EXPANSION gets a road put near his investment property in Texas, when he lives in Illinois (Hastert)???!!!
As for Murtha, you mean the guy who *refused* to take a bribe from the FBI? Or maybe you meant Cunningham, Delay, et. al, that *took* bribes?
Poor little loser… You’re just another cog in the wheel of that corruption. Keep spinning, it’s funny to watch you have to defend SO MUCH CORRUPTION by simply trying to point the finger where it doesn’t exist!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pmA better *alignment* would be 2006, where in an unprecedented election Democrats didn’t lose a single seat?
Or an even better situation, is where over 50% of Americans now say the are or *lean* Democratic, compared to only about 34% that are or *lean* Republican?
That’s a good one! Let’s look at polls of 1000 or so Americans rather than the actual opinion of 110 million voters!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pmYou mean the same Pelosi who tried to put a judge who was impeached of bribery (which she voted for) in charge of our national intelligence? Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
What, you don’t believe in *redemption* in people? That someone who made a mistake *decades* ago can’t do better now? So then you must think it’s awful for a drunk that ran out on a DUI, and draft dodged AWOL and was coke head to be president?
BAHAHA, you’re so st*pid!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThat’s a good one! Let’s look at polls of 1000 or so Americans rather than the actual opinion of 110 million voters! Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
That’s a good one! Lets ignore both the *polls* and the 2006 election that *confirm* them, and delusionally believe that America isn’t sick of you wingnuts!!! BAHAHAHA, keep it up! You’re the best friend of the liberals - stay the course!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pmNo response m12?
During the eight full months between Delay’s first indictment and his resigning his seat in Congress, did you call for his expulsion from the House by Denny Hastert?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pmThat’s a good one! Let’s look at polls of 1000 or so Americans rather than the actual opinion of 110 million voters! Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Poor little idi*t - you really don’t know how *science* and *math* works - do you? BAHAHAHA, poor thing!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pmThat’s a good one! Let’s look at polls of 1000 or so Americans rather than the actual opinion of 110 million voters!
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Let’s look at the actual opinion of millions of American voters in 2006. You ignored that part of the post you responded to.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pmLet’s look at the actual opinion of millions of American voters in 2006. You ignored that part of the post you responded to. Comment by KRank — May 30, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
That’s because he was to busy trying to “Fix the Facts”, like the Commander in Chief! Once a *CON* always a *CON*!!! These wingnuts hate the truth - it has a *liberal* bias! ;)
May 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pmDuring the eight full months between Delay’s first indictment and his resigning his seat in Congress, did you call for his expulsion from the House by Denny Hastert?
Yep. He was part of the problem.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pmLet’s look at the actual opinion of millions of American voters in 2006. You ignored that part of the post you responded to.
George W. Bush wasn’t on the ballot in 2006.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWhat, you don’t believe in *redemption* in people? That someone who made a mistake *decades* ago can’t do better now? So then you must think it’s awful for a drunk that ran out on a DUI, and draft dodged AWOL and was coke head to be president?
I don’t know about you, but I think bribery is a bit more serous than a DUI, especially since the President doesn’t drive anywhere himself.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI notice, m12, that you haven’t responded to my question in #52, yet you did respond to a point I made two posts later. Which means you HAD to have seen #52 and just ignored it. Why is that? Maybe you’d care to take a crack at it now:
During the eight full months between Delay’s first indictment and his resigning his seat in Congress, did you call for his expulsion from the House by Denny Hastert?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pmYep. He was part of the problem.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
So you admit your *leadership* is corrupt and impotent. Fair enough.
George W. Bush wasn’t on the ballot in 2006.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
But the *republicans* were. As for 2004, you mean when George Bush only won 50.7% (barely more than half) of the vote, during a time where he wouldn’t stop about the importance of not changing leadership during a *war*? Yeah, what was unprecedented about it, is by what a *thin* margin he won *despite* being at war…
I don’t know about you, but I think bribery is a bit more serous than a DUI, especially since the President doesn’t drive anywhere himself. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
How *convenient* for you to *desperately* try to reframe my question!!! How *pathetic* - as *usual*. What about KNOWN DUI - which he fled from (most people would go to jail), Class 1 Narcotics use, being AWOL, or even the STOCK SCAM that the SEC slapped his wrists for - but should have landed him in jail? I can go *on* and *on* you know - mister defender of *corruption*.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pmIn response to another poster, m12 sez:
“Let’s look at the actual opinion of millions of American voters in 2006. You ignored that part of the post you responded to.”
m12: “George W. Bush wasn’t on the ballot in 2006.”
Yeah, that sure would have made a big difference in the outcome, huh? George W Bush toplining the Republican ballot in 2006 surely would have avoided the bloodbath of losing both house of Congress and control of a majority of governorships.
/sarcasm off/
May 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pmBut the *republicans* were. As for 2004, you mean when George Bush only won 50.7% (barely more than half) of the vote, during a time where he wouldn’t stop about the importance of not changing leadership during a *war*? Yeah, what was unprecedented about it, is by what a *thin* margin he won *despite* being at war…
I don’t think a thin victory is something to be ashamed of. Unlike Truman and Johnson during their wars, he wasn’t in such a poor position that he decided not to run at all.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pmYeah, that sure would have made a big difference in the outcome, huh? George W Bush toplining the Republican ballot in 2006 surely would have avoided the bloodbath of losing both house of Congress and control of a majority of governorships.
Nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that 7 out of 10 presidential elections since 1968 have shown that Americans don’t want a Democrat as Commander-in-Chief.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pmI don’t think a thin victory is something to be ashamed of. Unlike Truman and Johnson during their wars, he wasn’t in such a poor position that he decided not to run at all. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
It is when you *claim* it was unprecedented. It makes you look like a dum bass!
He wasn’t in a poor position, because he was still feeding the *lies* that Iraq had WMDs and was a *threat*. Now the US knows you NeoNaziCons are nothing but a bunch of selfish, corrupt liars…
Nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that 7 out of 10 presidential elections since 1968 have shown that Americans don’t want a Democrat as Commander-in-Chief. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
What we do know is 3 out of 4 presidential elections since 1992 have shown that America wants a Democrat more than a Republican as commander in chief (Bush lost by 500000 votes in 2000).
See dum bass - that sword cuts both ways! And your *numbers* are wrong, because you didn’t count Bush *losing* (represent what America wants - your claim) in 2000…
Sorry *child*, but you look like an *idiot* again!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWhat we do know is that 7 out of 10 presidential elections since 1968 have shown that Americans don’t want a Democrat as Commander-in-Chief.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
I notice you only go back to 1968. How about going back to 1960 and saying 7 out of 12? Oh, that’s right — because you’d rather start with the only President to resign his office in disgrace.
Speaking of disgrace, m12, have you given any more thought to that simple question I asked you? I notice you keep skipping over it. A lot on your mind, I guess.
During the eight full months between Delay’s first indictment and his resigning his seat in Congress, did you call for his expulsion from the House by Denny Hastert?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm#65: I don’t know why m12 doesn’t just feakin’ lie and claim he did call for Delay to be expelled.
Lying is such second nature to them, you’d think they’d come up with this one on their own. It’s not like they have any self-respect to preserve.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI notice you only go back to 1968. How about going back to 1960 and saying 7 out of 12? Oh, that’s right — because you’d rather start with the only President to resign his office in disgrace.
Well, I remember reading about your majority Leader Steny Hoyer talking about the minimum wage in 1968.
http://hoyer.house.gov/ Newsroom/ index.asp?ID=831&DocumentType=Op-Ed
Since he picked it, I figured it was a good year to start with. Oh, and I answered your question back in post 56.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:20 pmm12 sez:
Oh, and I answered your question back in post 56.
Yep, he did! And, as predicted, he lied preemptively. Way to come through, m12!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIt is when you *claim* it was unprecedented. It makes you look like a dum bass!
It was unprecedented. Unlike Clinton, who got less votes both times than Reagan in 84 and Bush Sr. in 88, Bush Jr. outdid all his predecessors.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pmWell, I remember reading about your majority Leader Steny Hoyer talking about the minimum wage in 1968.
http://hoyer.house.gov/ Newsroom/ index.asp?ID=831&DocumentType=Op-Ed
Since he picked it, I figured it was a good year to start with. Oh, and I answered your question back in post 56.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Wow. That’s a really bizarre way to choose a starting point that just happens to maximize the benefit to your argument. Color me surprised.
I see you DID in fact claim to call for Tom Delay’s expulsion in #56. I wonder why your first response to that question (in #41) was to claim that “Tom Delay didn’t have to be expelled. He resigned”…
Sounds like a bit of a misaligned story, m12. Let others call you a liar, I will simply note the incongruities in your responses.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pmWell, I remember reading about your majority Leader Steny Hoyer talking about the minimum wage in 1968.
Since he picked it, I figured it was a good year to start with. Oh, and I answered your question back in post 56.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
And it’s much *easier* to ignore you’ve lost 3 of the last 4 popular elections that way!!! Yeah, no *trend* there - dum bass!
It was unprecedented. Unlike Clinton, who got less votes both times than Reagan in 84 and Bush Sr. in 88, Bush Jr. outdid all his predecessors. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Yeah, amazing when you have a 3rd party candidate in the mix what will happen! What was more amazing was that Gore beat bush by a HALF MILLION VOTES, and Kerry *almost* won, even with Nader in the Race! Now *that* was unprecedented!
But, that’s OK, if you don’t recognize *reality*, you’re a NeoNaziCon, and the *truth* has a liberal bias! Dum bass!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pmYeah, amazing when you have a 3rd party candidate in the mix what will happen! What was more amazing was that Gore beat bush by a HALF MILLION VOTES, and Kerry *almost* won, even with Nader in the Race! Now *that* was unprecedented!
Actually, 3 Presidents prior to Bush 43 won despite losing the popular vote. It’s not unprecedented.
And Kerry *almost* winning? Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear warfare. Funny thing, as people have been losing Presidential elections for 200 years! Not unprecedented either.
It’ll be great to tack John Edwards on that last category soon.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pmActually, 3 Presidents prior to Bush 43 won despite losing the popular vote. It’s not unprecedented. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Yes but those 3 won the electoral votes - Bush didn’t. He was *given* the victory by the supreme court, subverting Florida law.
And Kerry *almost* winning? Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear warfare. Funny thing, as people have been losing Presidential elections for 200 years! Not unprecedented either. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
But they haven’t been almost winning with a 3rd party candidate, the entire MSM press blaring lying smears, and a president yelling “the sky is falling”.
But I don’t expect you to give him credit for this - you wingnuts always detest reality…
It’ll be great to tack John Edwards on that last category soon.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Maybe Guiliani will show up in a dress as your escort to the ball? Or have you already been fitted for your gown? BAHAHA, yeah, I just *love* the active fantasy life of you wingnuts!
As I said before the American people have chosen Democrats 3 of the last 4 presidential races, and the demographics have steadily trended democrat. You’re f*cked NeoNaziCon! A “Coup” or a Diebold “Miracle” is about the only hope you have left for your “Endless wars for Israel” agenda.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pmYes but those 3 won the electoral votes - Bush didn’t. He was *given* the victory by the supreme court, subverting Florida law.
More lies!
But they haven’t been almost winning with a 3rd party candidate, the entire MSM press blaring lying smears, and a president yelling “the sky is fallingâ€.
But I don’t expect you to give him credit for this - you wingnuts always detest reality…
Credit for what? Meaningless circumstances inherent in any political campaign? Or how about “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it†?
I’m not worried at all about 2008. The last time the Democrats were in power, back in 1993, they passed the largest tax hike in history and voters gave them the boot soon after. This Congress is trying to outdo that by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and they’ll get the boot again.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI’m not worried at all about 2008. The last time the Democrats were in power, back in 1993, they passed the largest tax hike in history and voters gave them the boot soon after. This Congress is trying to outdo that by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and they’ll get the boot again.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
“They passed the largest tax hike in history” that not coincidentally led to the most robust and sustainable economy this nation had seen in at least thirty years (since the Kennedy administration, actually). What were Republican predictions about that tax hike? That it would “destroy the economy”? yeah, um… not so much, as it turned out.
I’m glad you’re so confident about 2008. I hope most die-hard twenty-eight percenters are. Most of the Republican Party strategists are not, but what do they know? They pay attention to polls, after all. Your gut is all that matters, right? You keep on keepin’ on with your version of the world.
We’ll stick with the “reality-based community”.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pm“They passed the largest tax hike in history†that not coincidentally led to the most robust and sustainable economy this nation had seen in at least thirty years (since the Kennedy administration, actually). What were Republican predictions about that tax hike? That it would “destroy the economy� yeah, um… not so much, as it turned out.
You can thank the emergence of the internet for that, not the tax hikes. Unfortunately, even Al Gore can’t invent the internet a second time.
We have had 22 straight quarters of positive GDP growth after the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Just watch and see the Democrats’ policy destory it.
Let’s talk about Kennedy, though.
“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference
“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
Great man, a great President, and a great American.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pmI’m not worried at all about 2008. The last time the Democrats were in power, back in 1993, they passed the largest tax hike in history and voters gave them the boot soon after. This Congress is trying to outdo that by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and they’ll get the boot again.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Link.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pmLook Sen. Stevens is NOT a CROOK. I don’t give a hoot N a hollor, ok he’s a crook. I was trying to find an excuse to blame the Democrats, but I couldn’t. Hey, blame the media, yeah, that’s it. It’s the media’s fault. They made him take a bribe, or campaign contribution. The media is out to get Sen. Stevens. They hate him because he’s a loyal Republican who took a bribe, I mean campaign contribution. He admits to wrong doing, I mean he’s completely inocent of the charges. Sen Stevens is a crook, I mean he’s served his State and this country with honor. This isn’t the first bribe Sen. Stevens has taken, I mean Sen. Stevens would never take a bribe. Are there anymore questions?
signed
his press secretary
May 30th, 2007 at 6:49 pmYou can thank the emergence of the internet for that, not the tax hikes. Unfortunately, even Al Gore can’t invent the internet a second time. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
BAHAHAHA you think there isn’t a relationship? So you do give Gore credit then - because it was him that *emerged* the internet. He did drive the “creation” of the commercial internet. The word “invent” is not what he used, and in fact is another example of the kind of “dishonest” smear I was referring too…. Sad, and pathetic, how you can’t resist *lying* every time you post on a topic. Alas, you’re a loser.
We have had 22 straight quarters of positive GDP growth after the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Just watch and see the Democrats’ policy destory it. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
We have the most anemic recovery in history… Our growth last quarter was less than FRANCE, and the GDP growth saw no real growth in wages and a decline in the value of the currency that accompanies it.
You really don’t know much about *economics* do you dum bass?
Great man, a great President, and a great American.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Then maybe we should double the current taxes the level he was proposing?
Another Half-truth - you seem *prone* to those.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pmYour clever citation of Kennedy when it suits you leaves out a few details. Yes, he absolutely stimulated the economy through tax cuts (odd, for a Kennedy, huh? the very definition for righties of a “tax-and spend liberal”) but the situation in which he assumed the presidency was completely different than today. In 1960, the top tax bracket was 91% — set that high in the fifties largely to help PAY FOR WAR COSTS.
Kennedy cut the top tax rates to 70%. And the economy boomed. The budget was balanced. The United States LOANED money to other nations.
Bush cut the top tax rates, set at roughly 37% under Clinton, to what? 29%? And the DEFICIT BOOMED. The United States BORROWS money to cover our war expenses and our faith-based domestic spending. The national economic performance, which depends on consumer spending for 60% of its activity, is also being financed, since for two years in a row the national savings rate has been NEGATIVE. First time that’s happened since the Great Depression. In other words, Americans are spending more than they’re making and that spending is boosting the economy. How sustainable is that?
But you keep cherry-picking stats and I’m sure that will serve the GOP very well in 2008.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pmCredit for what? Meaningless circumstances inherent in any political campaign? Or how about “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it†? Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Yeah, the *complexities* of the senate can *confuse* a simpleton like yourself… Especially when the mainstream media intentionally furthers the deception… You know, like voting for a draft, but voting against a final bill that included unacceptable measures (like a withdrawal date?)… I wouldn’t expect you to understand how *guvumunt* works.
I’m not worried at all about 2008. The last time the Democrats were in power, back in 1993, they passed the largest tax hike in history and voters gave them the boot soon after. This Congress is trying to outdo that by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and they’ll get the boot again.Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Oh, dear st*pid child. That’s NOT the reason for 1994 election, but you just keep telling yourself that!!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pmYour clever citation of Kennedy when it suits you leaves out a few details. Yes, he absolutely stimulated the economy through tax cuts (odd, for a Kennedy, huh? the very definition for righties of a “tax-and spend liberalâ€) but the situation in which he assumed the presidency was completely different than today. In 1960, the top tax bracket was 91% — set that high in the fifties largely to help PAY FOR WAR COSTS.
Kennedy cut the top tax rates to 70%. And the economy boomed. The budget was balanced. The United States LOANED money to other nations.
Kennedy did what he could at the time. Unfortunately, he was not given his full 8 years, or we would have seen needed tax reform about 15 years before Ronald Reagan finally came in and did it.
Kennedy and Reagan were smart enough to realize that outrageous 90% tax rates were uncollectible. John Conyers isn’t; he’s trying to push through his health insurance bill with a 3.3% payroll tax. Unfortunately for Conyers, rich people like John Edwards don’t bother paying these taxes, and he doesn’t get any money!
Bush cut the top tax rates, set at roughly 37% under Clinton, to what? 29%? And the DEFICIT BOOMED. The United States BORROWS money to cover our war expenses and our faith-based domestic spending. The national economic performance, which depends on consumer spending for 60% of its activity, is also being financed, since for two years in a row the national savings rate has been NEGATIVE. First time that’s happened since the Great Depression. In other words, Americans are spending more than they’re making and that spending is boosting the economy. How sustainable is that?
Indefinitely, unless you think our GDP is going to stop growing. Debt/GDP is smaller today than it was in 1995, and it’s smaller than about 20 other developed nations.
As far as the annual deficit is concerned, all Democrats have to do is not establish a bunch of new welfare programs for the next 4 years, even that will be gone.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pmWe have the most anemic recovery in history… Our growth last quarter was less than FRANCE, and the GDP growth saw no real growth in wages and a decline in the value of the currency that accompanies it.
You want our economy to be like France?
http://www.indexmundi.com/ france/ gdp_real_growth_rate.html
The last 5 years of GDP growth there were 1%, .5%, 2.1%, 1.2%, and 2%. For us, it was 2.45%, 3.1%, 4.4%, 3.2%, and 3.4%.
Tell me, why are you ignoring 5 years of results in favor of a single quarter?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pmYeah, the *complexities* of the senate can *confuse* a simpleton like yourself… Especially when the mainstream media intentionally furthers the deception… You know, like voting for a draft, but voting against a final bill that included unacceptable measures (like a withdrawal date?)… I wouldn’t expect you to understand how *guvumunt* works.
Maybe Kerry doesn’t understand, either, since that’s what he said in his own words.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pmOh, and ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I noticed you ignored my question in the last thread. I’ll repost it here. Your comments are in italics:
By getting control of the health “profit†industry that is largely price gouging the public? How about universal health care - since the rest of the ‘western’ countries aren’t facing the ‘free market profiteering’ we’re facing?
Medicare is nonprofit, and is Ted Kennedy’s model for universal health care. Medicare also costs American taxpayers about $8000 per person covered per year.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ ReportsTrustFunds/ downloads/ tr2006.pdf
Please explain to me how you are going to reduce Medicare’s growth from 9% to 3%, and what exactly ‘getting control of the health profit industry’ means. Also please explain how the government is going to receive $8000 * 300 million ($2.4 trillion) from.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pmStevens must have backed the wrong oil company….
May 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pmMedicare is nonprofit, and is Ted Kennedy’s model for universal health care. Medicare also costs American taxpayers about $8000 per person covered per year. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Wow, imagine that! Old people, cost more to *treat*, because they’re sick more often!
You mean the medicare that only has 2.1% overhead, compared to the “best standards” private insurance with 13% overhead (that’s a *generous* figure compared to the overall industry)!
See you forget, junior. For *profit* means just that - PROFIT!!!
Please explain to me how you are going to reduce Medicare’s growth from 9% to 3%, and what exactly ‘getting control of the health profit industry’ means. Also please explain how the government is going to receive $8000 * 300 million ($2.4 trillion) from. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
How about by permitting it to *negotiate* prices? DUH!!! You’re a really st*pid little sh*t - aren’t you?
And do you *really* think the average 30 year old will cost $8000 a year in medical expenses? Because that’s what medicare *reflects* - $8000 a year in CARE GIVING, with a 2.1% overhead!!!!
Dum bass!
May 30th, 2007 at 8:57 pmThe last 5 years of GDP growth there were 1%, .5%, 2.1%, 1.2%, and 2%. For us, it was 2.45%, 3.1%, 4.4%, 3.2%, and 3.4%.
Tell me, why are you ignoring 5 years of results in favor of a single quarter? Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Hey, you were the one st*pid enough to crow about the economy!!! Tell me, how much are french assets worth, compared to American ones, with a currency that’s nearly doubled in value compared to the dollar in the last 10 years? Imagine that! Their GDP output growth relative to their currency growth - funny eh?
And the french get free schools, free medical, yet their economy was stronger last quarter than ours - that must really toast your cookies son!
And tell me, after the giant *collapse* before those quarters, how has the US recovered, compared to *previous* recoveries? Look it up - it’s ONE OF THE WORST EVER!!! Dum bass!
Maybe Kerry doesn’t understand, either, since that’s what he said in his own words. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Or Occam’s razor, is that YOU are the one too st*pid to understand - junior…
May 30th, 2007 at 9:01 pmKennedy did what he could at the time. Unfortunately, he was not given his full 8 years, or we would have seen needed tax reform about 15 years before Ronald Reagan finally came in and did it.
Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
You mean at the point where RayGun nearly bankrupted the country with DEBT, before Clinton was responsible and started paying it down? You really don’t understand sh*t about economics - how funny!!!
Kennedy and Reagan were smart enough to realize that outrageous 90% tax rates were uncollectible. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
BAHAHA, st*pid fool. They were TOTALLY collectable, and RAYGun never saw, nor was ever involved 90% tax rates - dum bass… He was associated with producing more debt, than every president that came before him COMBINED though! Spend crazy republicans, you people are worse than Lindsay Lohan with Cocaine!!
John Conyers isn’t; he’s trying to push through his health insurance bill with a 3.3% payroll tax. Unfortunately for Conyers, rich people like John Edwards don’t bother paying these taxes, and he doesn’t get any money! Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
BAHAHAHA, EVERYONE that WORKS pays payroll taxes - dum bass! You never bothered to notice that Edwards was WORKING in the PRIVATE SECTOR until recently? BAHAHAAH idiot!
Indefinitely, unless you think our GDP is going to stop growing. Debt/GDP is smaller today than it was in 1995, and it’s smaller than about 20 other developed nations. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
But in 1995 we were f*cked, until Clinton helped pay down the debt. We also were still *barely* a *saving* nation - now our debt is mostly foreign purchased. If you want to know what’s changed - it’s THAT!!! You also forget that those other 20 nations don’t have to depend on CHINA to buy their debts - dum bass!
As far as the annual deficit is concerned, all Democrats have to do is not establish a bunch of new welfare programs for the next 4 years, even that will be gone. Comment by m12 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
BAHAHAHA, what a st*pid r*t*rd!!! You haven’t even counted on the looming recession from the f*cked up policies of the last 6 years! Unless congress can get a handle on you reckless f*cks - we’re all f*cked *sshole!!
And what *welfare* programs were you referring to? You aren’t r*t*rded enough to call programs that *pay* for themselves *welfare* are you? Because the *welfare* programs in this country are *tiny* relative to the budget. If you’re referring to the NATION INSURANCE policies involved in medicare and social security - well as usual, you LACK of COMMAND of the english language shows. Were you parent *immigrants*, because you’re a clueless little f*ck on what english words to use to convey a point *accurately* - CHILD!
May 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pmHow about by permitting it to *negotiate* prices? DUH!!! You’re a really st*pid little sh*t - aren’t you?
And do you *really* think the average 30 year old will cost $8000 a year in medical expenses? Because that’s what medicare *reflects* - $8000 a year in CARE GIVING, with a 2.1% overhead!!!!
Clearly you did not even glance at the report, because that expense figure was from 2005, before the drug coverage program was enacted in January 2006. So tell me, how is *negotiating* prices (even if it works) going to lower a figure that includes $0 in drug costs?
Obviously, when health care is ‘free’, everyone is going to use more of it. But for argument’s sake, I’ll cut the number in half.
Please tell me how to raise $1.2 trillion in revenue to pay for your program.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pmBAHAHAHA, EVERYONE that WORKS pays payroll taxes - dum bass! You never bothered to notice that Edwards was WORKING in the PRIVATE SECTOR until recently? BAHAHAAH idiot!
Actually, he didn’t. Edwards formed an S corporation, then paid himself dividends, bypassing the Medicare tax.
Tell me, if he couldn’t even get himself to pay for ‘universal’ healthcare, how is he going to do it for 300 million Americans?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pmAnd what *welfare* programs were you referring to? You aren’t r*t*rded enough to call programs that *pay* for themselves *welfare* are you? Because the *welfare* programs in this country are *tiny* relative to the budget. If you’re referring to the NATION INSURANCE policies involved in medicare and social security - well as usual, you LACK of COMMAND of the english language shows. Were you parent *immigrants*, because you’re a clueless little f*ck on what english words to use to convey a point *accurately* - CHILD!
Medicaid itself took $295 billion out of the budget in 2004. That’s *tiny*?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:46 pmHey, you were the one st*pid enough to crow about the economy!!! Tell me, how much are french assets worth, compared to American ones, with a currency that’s nearly doubled in value compared to the dollar in the last 10 years? Imagine that! Their GDP output growth relative to their currency growth - funny eh?
And the french get free schools, free medical, yet their economy was stronger last quarter than ours - that must really toast your cookies son!
Their per capita GDP is $30k, ours is $43k, adjusted for the 2006 exchange rates. That should give you some idea.
But you failed to answer my question. Why are you making projections based on 1 quarter, instead of 20?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pmThose damn internet tubes are all clogged up with poop again!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 1:12 am