Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (279094)	3/8/2006 7:12:42 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576972

"The Democrats also got increases from Abramoff's clients." Some did, most didn't. But this is a straw man, Tim. The fact remains that those Democrats already had an interest in Indian affairs and casinos before Abramoff, unlike those Republicans who suddenly developed an interest in those issues and the Marianas after checks starting to show up. You keep ignoring the fact that contributions aren't illegal. Changing your vote because of them is. Let's take Reid as an example. Whatever else he might have done, he has consistently opposed Indian casinos that aren't on Indian land. In fact, he even sponsored a bill to make this illegal in general, but the Republicans voted it down. Given the fact he is from Nevada, this should be easy to understand. So when a check shows up from the Coushattas and Harry votes against such a casino, there isn't any real reason to suspect it swayed him. Now if he had voted for the measure, that would have been different. But when DeLay, Hastert, Blunt and Cantor get checks and then write a letter on this issue, when they've never shown an interest before for such things at all, then you have a strong possibility of quid pro quo. See the difference?