You'll have to argue with the Washington Post, and determine how their numbers are somehow wrong
They're referring to his 1994 governor's race, while I was referring to the presidential race. It is no surprise that one of the largest corporations in the state of Texas harbors the largest contributors to a governors campaign.
It really doesn't matter, however. There is no evidence of wrongdoing.
These are long lists - you'll say they are "partisan", and there is no doubt about that -- the question is whether after reading the voluminous details they are correct :
You're right. Meaningless, partisan crap.
If you can PROVE a lapse of integrity on Bush's part, let's hear it. Just one. I haven't seen it. Now, I recognize you can hurl insults and allegations of secrecy and conspiracy, but you can't prove a damned thing because there is no "there" there. Unlike your buddy Clinton, who was criminal from the word go.
Wrong - it was the consolidation and disregard for democracy
Your take and mine differ.
The growing lack of integrity since TR is at its height today, which is a surprise to trusting people such as yourself. I'd like to hear your reaction if you get a chance to read it.
I just strongly disagree with this statement. I think it is just a fact that under Clinton's administration integrity hit a new, all time low. And it was that way from day one. The current administration has shown absolute, unrivaled integrity from the outset. And it is a fact that no one has yet to be able to sustain any allegation of a lapse of integrity against Bush 43. |
