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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (15384)	9/21/2007 1:17:43 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Clinton, Dodd vote no on condemning MoveOn ad usatoday.com, Sept 21 2007 In the latest round of maneuvers over last week's MoveOn.org ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chris Dodd today voted against a Senate resolution that condemned the ad and supported Petraeus. Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, two other Democrats running for president, did not vote on the measure. Only 25 senators voted against the symbolic resolution, which said Petraeus "deserves the full support of the Senate" and the Senate "strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." Conservative blogger David Brody followed the floor debate and quoted Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell: “Let's take sides. General Petraeus or MoveOn.org. Which one are we going to believe? Which one are we going to condemn?" Brody said the vote could return to haunt Clinton. Her vote triggered a sharp statement from Republican Mitt Romney: "Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief." There was no immediate reaction from Clinton. Dodd called it "a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war." MoveOn circulated a defiant e-mail vowing to keep up the fight and said of the Senate: "Yesterday, they couldn't even pass a bill to give soldiers adequate leave with their families before redeploying. But they're spending time cracking down on a newspaper ad?" The AP said Obama did not vote on the resolution even though he had voted "minutes earlier" for an alternative that condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans. The full-page MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times called Petraeus "General Betray Us." As we have noted here today, President Bush called the ad "disgusting"; MoveOn targeted McConnell with a "betrayal" ad on TV, and Gallup Poll editor in chief Frank Gallup noted that Petraeus is more popular than any presidential candidate.

To: American Spirit who wrote (15384)	9/21/2007 2:56:44 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

The Hong Kong-born Norman Hsu, a suspected Ponzi scheme mastermind, will get back about $850,000 in tainted donations. Hsu has raised more than $1 million for Democrats. The Los Angeles Times interviewed one investor who said she "can't stand" Hillary, but made donations "solely to stay in Hsu's good graces" and knew others who did the same. "They knew they had to do it or they were out," she said. Why would a suspected swindler be a top donor to a White House favorite? Is Hsu fronting for a group, a foreign government? • Why did Clinton ignore warnings about Hsu? California businessman Jack Cassidy reportedly alerted the Clinton campaign in June of his suspicions that Hsu was a fraudster. • The Clinton campaign is accepting future contributions from the same people to whom, because of their associations with Hsu, it is returning $850,000. That amounts to a shell game. • The Jack Abramoff scandal dominated the headlines last year. Why do the media suddenly become less interested in campaign finance improprieties when the violator is a Democrat? HsuGate is a flashback to the scandals of Clinton's husband — John Huang and the Buddhist temple; Johnny Chung transferring cash for a Red Chinese military officer, including $50,000 delivered directly to the then-first lady's chief of staff; Charlie Trie, who was cozy with a front firm for the Chinese military.