"John R. Carroll" wrote:

A Texas grand jury today indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on a criminal
count of conspiring with two political associates to violate state campaign
finance law, and DeLay announced he would temporarily step down as House
majority leader.

The rules of the Democratic Conference do not require a member under
indictment to step down.

Why is that?

Wes

wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

A Texas grand jury today indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on a
criminal count of conspiring with two political associates to
violate state campaign finance law, and DeLay announced he would
temporarily step down as House majority leader.

The rules of the Democratic Conference do not require a member under
indictment to step down.

Why is that?

I think Delay has stepped down from his leadership position only and party
affiliation wouldn't matter much.
The rule is a Congressional ethics rule not a party leadership issue.

In any event Wes, this is completely consistent with Delay's prior
statements regarding this sort of issue. He will be able to get what he has
claimed he wants - an opportunity to clear himself.

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their
representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public
trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by
special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their
constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. I say
the best disinfectant is full disclosure."
Delivered on the House floor in November 1995 by well-known reformer Tom
DeLay, R-Texas.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

The rule is a Congressional ethics rule not a party leadership issue.

In any event Wes, this is completely consistent with Delay's prior
statements regarding this sort of issue. He will be able to get what he has
claimed he wants - an opportunity to clear himself.

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their
representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public
trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by
special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their
constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. I say
the best disinfectant is full disclosure."
Delivered on the House floor in November 1995 by well-known reformer Tom
DeLay, R-Texas.

Ah, those poor republicans. So much trouble, so many under indictment,
or soon to be so. The Abromoff issue hasn't even been settled yet. The
poor man was fighting a war on so many fronts.

Those nasty prosecutors even had a copy of his check. Tisk.

And now, what *exactly* happened to the guy were going to install to
take Tom's place? I think his name was Dreier, what's up with that?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Blount, on the other hand, doesn't bring this baggage with him. You just
have to wonder how Dreier feels about it all.

Or, for that matter, how the taxpayers feel about Dreier's lover
on the public payroll....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , John R.
Carroll says...

The rule is a Congressional ethics rule not a party leadership issue.

In any event Wes, this is completely consistent with Delay's prior
statements regarding this sort of issue. He will be able to get what
he has claimed he wants - an opportunity to clear himself.

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their
representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at
the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and
dined by special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to
represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have
a right to know. I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure."
Delivered on the House floor in November 1995 by well-known reformer
Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Ah, those poor republicans. So much trouble, so many under
indictment, or soon to be so. The Abromoff issue hasn't even been
settled yet. The poor man was fighting a war on so many fronts.

Those nasty prosecutors even had a copy of his check. Tisk.

And now, what *exactly* happened to the guy were going to install to
take Tom's place? I think his name was Dreier, what's up with that?


He might be a Fag. The unspoken rule on the hill, often referred to as the
"Barney Frank" rule, seems to be that sexual orientation won't be
questioned except in cases where it might be relevant. Dreier has adamantly
refused to discuss his proclivities or sexual orientation for the record.
Denny Hastert and the Republican leadership have enough on their plates
right now without a Gay Leader in the mix. I'd love to hear what Pat
Robertson or Sam Brownback would have to say were that to happen.
Blount, on the other hand, doesn't bring this baggage with him. You just
have to wonder hor Dreier feels about it all.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

jim rozen wrote:
In article , John R.
Carroll says...

Blount, on the other hand, doesn't bring this baggage with him. You
just have to wonder how Dreier feels about it all.

Or, for that matter, how the taxpayers feel about Dreier's lover
on the public payroll....

Jim

Wow! I hadn't heard that. I wouldn't say it was exclusive to homosexuals
though. Must be quite a few roun heeled cuties on the pad at all levels of
government.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
| In article , John R.
Carroll
| says...
|
| Blount, on the other hand, doesn't bring this baggage with him. You just
| have to wonder how Dreier feels about it all.
|
| Or, for that matter, how the taxpayers feel about Dreier's lover
| on the public payroll....
|
| Jim

So, how did you feel when Barney Frank was doing similar, and worse
things, right out of his apartment and even his office?

carl mciver wrote:


It's been failed to mention with the same oversized text that Rep.
William Jefferson D, La,

Blah, blah, blah.

I never heard of a William Jefferson. I do remember Jim Wright though.
I wonder if you do too?

If you don't, let me help you a bit here. He was the Democratic Speaker
of the House. He had to resign.

Look it up.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On 28 Sep 2005 17:34:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

The rule is a Congressional ethics rule not a party leadership issue.

In any event Wes, this is completely consistent with Delay's prior
statements regarding this sort of issue. He will be able to get what he has
claimed he wants - an opportunity to clear himself.

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their
representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public
trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by
special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their
constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. I say
the best disinfectant is full disclosure."
Delivered on the House floor in November 1995 by well-known reformer Tom
DeLay, R-Texas.

Ah, those poor republicans. So much trouble, so many under indictment,
or soon to be so. The Abromoff issue hasn't even been settled yet. The
poor man was fighting a war on so many fronts.

Those nasty prosecutors even had a copy of his check. Tisk.

And now, what *exactly* happened to the guy were going to install to
take Tom's place? I think his name was Dreier, what's up with that?

Jim

Hypocrisy convention

The Democrats railed at big corporations with one fist and took their
money with the other, while Al Gore's speech invoked the class warfare
politics of yesteryear.

By David Horowitz
Pages 1 2

August 21, 2000 | The eve of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles
proved to be a summary moment in the politics of left-wing hypocrisy.
Center stage was Jesse Jackson descending from his $2,000 a night
presidential suite at the Santa Monica Loews Hotel to ... protest the
anti-labor policies of the Santa Monica Loews Hotel! A
multimillionaire from lifetime profits earned as a crusader for the
oppressed, Jackson led demonstrators in a familiar chant of rebellion:
"We the people, we the workers will win!" Later in the week as he
moved to the Staples convention podium, the chant metamorphosed into
"More Gore, more Gore, more Gore."

Another leader at the Sunday night protest was John Sweeney, the
socialist head of the AFL-CIO and a key financial force behind Al
Gore's "We're Fighting For You Against Them" campaign. Many of
Sweeney's own union leaders are currently under indictment or in jail
for illegally laundering nearly 1 million campaign dollars on behalf
of the Clinton-Gore team. But this didn't prevent Sweeney from
mounting the ramparts of self-righteousness to denounce Loews as a
"corporation without conscience."

Sweeney was something of a moderate compared to another Gore fat cat,
Gerald McEntee, who was also a speaker at the convention and a force
behind the protest. McEntee is head of the government union AFCSME and
a target of the money laundering investigation. He has become an
increasingly familiar face as a prime-time ranter at the
anti-globalization demonstrations in both Seattle and Washington,
where he railed against putting "profits above people," resurrecting
an old Marxist slogan. A fresher slogan that echoed the same
sentiments on the streets of both party conventions was: "Hey, hey,
ho, ho, private property has got to go!"

The labor dispute at the Loews Santa Monica pitted immigrant workers
from Mexico and the Philippines against the giant hotel chain. The
strikers claim that Loews is a union-busting corporation that denies
its workers representation and a "living wage." In response, Loews put
up $125,000 to place an initiative on the ballot that would forbid the
City of Santa Monica from enacting a "living wage" law.

Why was Jackson in the hotel at all? For that matter, why was the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- the chief fundraising
entity for all Democratic senatorial campaigns -- also headquartered
at the Loews? Why didn't they leave the moment they knew the dispute
was brewing?

The answer is that while Al Gore is positioning himself as a champion
"for the people and against the powerful," Gore's close friend, key
funder and longtime "kitchen cabinet" member, Jonathan Tisch, is the
CEO of the Loews Corporation.

In the last three years, Tisch has personally given Democrats $335,500
in soft money contributions. (Two Tisch-owned companies gave another
$290,000 to the Republicans.) Tisch personally gives hard money
contributions at $1,000 a shot exclusively to Democrat candidates with
only one exception -- a Republican who sits on a committee affecting
the entertainment industry. (Jonathan's brother Steve is a film mogul
at Universal.) Among the Democrats Tisch funds are Hillary Clinton,
Joe Lieberman, Charles Robb, Mary Landrieu, Christopher Dodd, Bob
Kerrey, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, Robert
Torricelli, Barbara Mikulski, Charles Rangel, Eric Vitaliano, Nita
Lowey, Jerry Nadler, Patrick Leahy, Robert Wexler, Bob Graham, Harry
Reid, Shelley Berkley, Jonathan Miller, Mel Carnahan, Carolyn Maloney,
John Tanner, Jon Corzine, Sam Farr, Thomas Carper and Robert Weygand.

Jonathan is not the only Tisch who gives to Democrats, moreover. The
Tisch family's political contributions fill up 25 pages of Federal
Election Commission reports. In addition to Jonathan, there are Alice,
Andrew, Bonnie, Daniel, James, Joan, Laura, Larry, Merryl, Robert,
Steve, Tommy and Wilma Tisch. In addition to Jonathan's Democrats, the
siblings give to Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Sam
Gejdenson, Fritz Hollings, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden and Tom Harkin,
among others. (Two or three Tisches also give to Republicans.) And to
square their liberal circles, they give both to Emily's List and the
tobacco lobby.

The Loews Corporation is a $60 billion holding company controlled by
the Tisch family, which owns (in addition to the hotels) CNA
Insurance, which is Big Insurance heavily invested in the healthcare
industry; Diamond Offshore Drilling, which is a company that supplies
oil rigs to the offshore oil industry; and P. Lorillard & Sons, the
tobacco giant that makes Kent cigarettes whose filters have contained
heavy doses of asbestos, so that the company has had to settle several
lawsuits of workers who died from exposure.

Of course Gore doesn't need the Tisch family to score the
contradictions. As protesters outside the convention will not let him
forget, Occidental Petroleum made the Gore fortune and is presently
engaged in drilling the rain forest burial grounds of the U'wa Indians
with Gore's blessing. Back in Tennessee, a zinc mine Gore acquired
under sweetheart terms from Occidental Petroleum has been tagged three
times by the Environmental Protection Agency for polluting the Caney
Fork River in the Cumberland Valley. "It takes somebody who is
independent from Big Oil to take on Big Oil," Gore said to the
Washington Times back in June. Apparently it does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081201678.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2801973_2.html
Yet, The Washington Post's Jeffrey Smith reported last year that
"Earle, an elected Democrat who oversees the state's Public Integrity
Unit, previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats
for corruption or election law violations."

And the Associated Press reported last December that Earle had
prosecuted some of the biggest Democratic names in the state,
including, "former Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis, former Texas
Attorney General Jim Mattox, former State Treasurer Warren Harding and
former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough."

Buried under a sea of political scandal in the late 1980s and early
1990s, congressional Democrats often evoked the same defense. And it
didn't work .

"Common Cause has made itself the handmaiden of a partisan political
initiative," Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright (Tex.) complained in
a May 18, 1988, press release --the day the nonpartisan watchdog group
filed an ethics complaint against him in the House.

Wright resigned the next year in disgrace. Republicans exploited
Wright's troubles and a series of other Democratic foibles to put an
end to the Democrats' four-decade reign in Washington in 1994.

The reason was simple: It is entirely possible both that your enemies
are out to get you and that you did exactly what you are being accused
of doing. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 28 Sep 2005 17:34:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

Ah, those poor republicans. So much trouble, so many under indictment,
or soon to be so. The Abromoff issue hasn't even been settled yet. The
poor man was fighting a war on so many fronts.

Those nasty prosecutors even had a copy of his check. Tisk.

And now, what *exactly* happened to the guy were going to install to
take Tom's place? I think his name was Dreier, what's up with that?

Jim
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/000265.html
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 28 Sep 2005 17:34:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

Ah, those poor republicans. So much trouble, so many under indictment,
or soon to be so. The Abromoff issue hasn't even been settled yet. The
poor man was fighting a war on so many fronts.

Those nasty prosecutors even had a copy of his check. Tisk.

And now, what *exactly* happened to the guy were going to install to
take Tom's place? I think his name was Dreier, what's up with that?

Jim
oth political parties in America do things that are dumb and wrong,
but in the case of the Democrats it is both extreme and shameless.

When Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey died in 1978, the country
rightly memorialized a statesman who had meant so much to his party
and his country. Many in the country watched with some surprise as
Richard Nixon entered the memorial service. They had thought that face
and name, "Nixon," were gone forever. But as they watched the service,
a new thought occurred: The man who had come to represent the worst in
politics — abuse of law, cynicism, a win-at-any-cost approach, lying —
had come to pay tribute to a man who had represented some of the best
in public service.




I had voted for Humphrey for president in 1968 because I thought his
policies were right and because I thought Nixon corrupt. Over the next
six years, Nixon found new lows — and his representation of the
Republican party was one reason I remained a Democrat, and stayed a
Democrat, for so long (I did not become a Republican until 1986). But
Nixon's attendance and mood at the Humphrey memorial marked the
beginning of Nixon's rebirth into a statesman. He came to a public
event to honor a political opponent and another statesman — he did not
look cheerful and one could not look at him and think he was beaming
and scheming about the prospects of turning Humphrey's seat over to
the GOP. A decade and a half later, President Clinton would come to
represent the same corruption that Nixon had: abuse of law, cynicism,
a win-at-any-cost approach, lying.

These thoughts came back to me as I thought about Senator Paul
Wellstone, and as I watched his memorial service. I did not agree with
Paul Wellstone on many things, but there was no doubt in my mind that
he was a man of honor who sincerely believed in his principles and who
would never compromise on those principles — or ask others to
compromise on theirs. And then the memorial service became a political
rally. And that rally became yet another sad chapter in the reputation
of the once-great Democratic party, represented by people like Hubert
Humphrey.

Former President Clinton entered the event beaming and laughing, and
this time he did not feel the need to hide his laughter as he did at
Ron Brown's funeral once he saw the camera point at him back in 1996.
The Brown event was a memorial service requiring Clinton's tears, even
if they were crocodile — an election was not a week away. The
Wellstone event was a political rally requiring a get-out-the-vote
drive. Foot-stomping was the order of the day — somber reflection and
grief were at a discount.

Perhaps we should have been clued in that we were going to have a
rally when news broke that Vice President Dick Cheney was asked by the
Wellstone family not to attend the memorial. When Senate Minority
Leader Trent Lott was booed at the ostensible memorial service, we
knew this was not a memorial service of any kind, but, rather, a
mid-term Democratic Convention. When Rick Kahn, a friend of
Wellstone's, took to the podium, we received the most memorable and
dynamic political rallying speech since the 2000 conventions. Kahn not
only pointed to certain Republican officeholders to publicly ask them
to prove their friendship to Wellstone by voting against their
principles (something Wellstone would never have asked an opponent to
do), he said, "We can redeem the sacrifice of his [Wellstone's] life
if you help us win this election for Paul Wellstone." In that
statement, ratified by thunderous applause and foot stomping, we
finally understood something about the Democratic party and its
constituency. Politics was not only all-consuming for them, and the
political was not just the same as the personal — politics had
revealed itself for what it truly had become for the Democratic party:
final.

Nothing is too monumental, nothing is too important, nothing is too
serious not to become a cause political for the Democrats.

ITEM: When President Clinton was found to have not only pointed his
finger to scold the American people for believing he had an affair
with an intern but was also revealed to have lied under oath, the
Democrats rallied to protect him, change the topic, and ensure his
political survival.

ITEM: When the 2000 political campaign looked to be a close race in
the battleground state of Wisconsin, Democrats were caught handing out
free cigarettes to the homeless to get them to vote for Al Gore, even
as the Democratic party's coffers were dependent on the trial lawyers'
litigation against "big tobacco."

ITEM: The Democratic party, having failed to persuade the U.S. Supreme
Court that Bush did not deserve to be president, won over the New
Jersey supreme court in ratifying their political efforts to simply
trade out a losing candidate (Robert Torricelli) for an elder
statesman with better chances (Frank Lautenberg) less than two months
before that critical election, long after primary season when these
decisions should be made by voters.

ITEM: This month, we are slowly learning, the tight Senate race
between Sen. Tim Johnson (D) and Rep. John Thune (R) in South Dakota
is being tainted by Democratic-party registration efforts on Indian
reservations where the names of dead people are turning up on
Democratic registration cards and absentee ballots. More fraud
investigations to follow.

I did not think about the foregoing examples as of a piece until I
watched the spectacle in Minnesota and realized there was almost
nothing the Democrats would not do to win an election. I was a
Democrat until my forties — and I changed parties over policy
differences with the party of my birth. But, starting with President
Clinton's scandals and the willingness of Democrats to defend them, I
have become increasingly worried about the soul and ethics of the
Democratic party.

I am now seen as a partisan Republican, but I will continue to urge
the Democratic party to denounce and renounce its reproaches and its
reproachable tactics just as I continue to call the Republican party
to task when they do dumb and wrong things, even if they are not as
bad or done to the same degree as those of the Democrats. Abuse of
law, cynicism, a win-at-any-cost approach, and lying are not healthy
for a democratic politics, or a democratic polity. I am not alone; in
a conversation about President Clinton in 1999, it was Senator Paul
Wellstone who said, "I think Democrats run a real danger of being a
party that doesn't seem to be concerned about values, and doesn't seem
to be concerned about morality if, at a personal level, we don't make
it crystal clear how disapproving we are of the conduct — the
president's conduct. And we don't talk about character."

The Democratic party no longer runs a real danger; it crossed that
line some time ago. The memorial service cum political rally for
Senator Wellstone brought the sacred low. The 2002 Democrats' politics
of death may yield a certain death to politics. And their political
contretemps — abuse of law, cynicism, a win-at-any-cost approach,
lying — have turned the Democratic party into a Nixon party, a
pre-1978 Nixon party. It is nothing to be proud of. There is, however,
one distinction that Nixon marked that the current Democratic party
has not, and that is shame — Nixon knew shame, finally, which is why
he resigned and knew he had to rehabilitate himself. We are waiting to
see some level of shame from the current Democratic party because
today it is, above all, shameless.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I became a Republican around the same time as you (early 80's) and my
reason was Gov Cuomo (the Emporer of NY) or so he thought he was. I
still remember the night he had to concede to a no name (Gov Pataki),
it was one of the best days of my life, the next will be his (Cuomo's)
funeral........

In article . net, carl mciver
says...

So, how did you feel when Barney Frank was doing similar, and worse
things, right out of his apartment and even his office?

About the same way I did when that guy from NJ was doing it. He
quit over the scandle. It's an abuse of the public trust when
you put your buddy in a cushy job like that.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Wow! I hadn't heard that. I wouldn't say it was exclusive to homosexuals
though.

Agree. THough, if you look at all the rhetoric from the right, regarding
morals, it does seem pretty hypocrytical.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

oth political parties in America do things that are dumb and wrong,

Yep it's a terrible thing when the public trust gets abused.

Public servants should not be breaking the laws they themselves
have enacted.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Blount, on the other hand, doesn't bring this baggage with him. You just
have to wonder how Dreier feels about it all.

Or, for that matter, how the taxpayers feel about Dreier's lover
on the public payroll....

I wouldn't know about that but I sure feel no sorrow for Dreier. He's
getting what he should have known he would get from the Republican party.
They only allow closet queers in their party and never would let one have a
leadership post. Serves Dreier right. You lay down with dogs...

Hawke

So, how did you feel when Barney Frank was doing similar, and worse
things, right out of his apartment and even his office?

About the same way I did when that guy from NJ was doing it. He
quit over the scandle. It's an abuse of the public trust when
you put your buddy in a cushy job like that.


See how they do it every time? You point out that a Republican is gay and
has a lover on the payroll and what is the response? Is there any discussion
of the accusation about Dreier's sexuality? Is there any discussion of
whether his lover is indeed getting freebies? Is there one word about the
truth of the situation or anything to do with it? **** no! The first thing
that comes out of a Republican's mouth is to bring up some Democrat from
back when. Does it have anything to do with Dreier? Of course not, but
rather than even address the issue of Dreier they change the subject to some
past bad behavior by a Democrat. Too bad that has nothing to do with
Dreier's situation. Pointing out someone else's bad behavior doesn't excuse
your own. It's just sickening to have to listen to the same old crap over
and over every time a Republican does something wrong. I have news for you
Republicans; just because some Democrat did something wrong at some time
that doesn't excuse or have anything to do with the corruption and criminal
acts of Republicans. If your people are corrupt then that is what they are
and it has nothing to do with anyone else. Tom Delay is a crook and that has
not one thing to do with any Democrat and accusing others doesn't change
that one bit. I'm looking forward to seeing Tom in an orange jumpsuit.

Hawke

In article , Hawke says...

See how they do it every time? You point out that a Republican is gay and
has a lover on the payroll and what is the response? Is there any discussion
of the accusation about Dreier's sexuality? Is there any discussion of
whether his lover is indeed getting freebies? Is there one word about the
truth of the situation or anything to do with it? **** no! The first thing
that comes out of a Republican's mouth

Dear me. I seem to have switched affilliations somehow.

My point was that McGarvey's problem wasn't his sexual orientation,
it was his nepotism, for lack of a better word.

Same with Dreier. *I* (nor most liberal folks) could give less of
a hoot about his being gay. The issue is his installing is buddy
in a cushy job. The righties went nuts when McGarvey did that, all
they did when it turned out (suprise, was this a big secret?) that
Dreire was in the same boad was, they said
Oh, you can't be majority leader. They made McGarvey resign.
All the bluster against homosexuality never seems to be applied
to their own.

Now the *real* issue here is, what's up the cigarette guy they finally
did give the job to, what's his name, Blount?

Is his insider trading and favoritism as bad as Frists?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================