Republican vs. Democrat scandals
The Denver Post obsession with Republican “scandals” is hardly anything new. Why is it that we seldom hear anything about Democrat scandals? The recent scam regarding the Hillary Clinton campaign is a case in point. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, the Clinton campaign has received enormous donations from New York businessman, Norman Hsu. Now Hsu and his associates are under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible violation of campaign-finance law. Yet, where is the outrage? One would be hard pressed to find any coverage of the scam in the mainstream press. And that is only one of many Democrat scandals in recent months. In essence, the Denver Post editorial is a classic illustration of where its priorities really are!
This letter has not been edited.
Uh, didn't Hillary return the money once she found out where it came from? Funny you would leave that out of your letter. HYPOCRITE
Posted by Mary on September 13, 2007 02:21 PMCome now, Mary. Why would our befuddled little friend Brian Stuckey let those pesky facts get in the way of his cataract-clear vision?
Posted by on September 13, 2007 02:30 PMSharon B
No ESP or Vulcan mind meld on this letter. Mental connection to Stuckey twice in one week would be pushing it...permanent and irreversible brain damage may be unavoidable.
Posted by mongoose on September 13, 2007 02:35 PMBrian, wise up. at least 99% of all the politicians are compromised.
Brian said:
"In essence, the Denver Post editorial is a classic illustration of where its priorities really are!"
Yer right Brian, favoring the right.
Posted by GK on September 13, 2007 02:55 PMDear Mr. Stuckey,
You are an idiot. You wrote about this yesterday, were told that it's been in every paper (RMN, Post, NYT, LAT, ChiTrib, etc) and "GK" even replied about Alan Fabian, who was Mitt Romney's campaign finance co-chairman, being charged with a 23 count fraud indictment, on the AP but little reported.
But to you, it's the "liberal" media that is not covering Hillraiser Hsu, but is covering Mitt Romney?
I can understand that a person could think there is a liberal media bias because there are so many Republican scandals; this is not a good example, however.
Posted by Con Mor on September 13, 2007 03:01 PMHey Stinkey how about the non-coverage of child abuser Robert Lichfield from the Romney campaign?
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6818837
And of the course the non-coverage of departed national financial chairman of the Romney campaign Alan Fabian who is facing 23 felony indictments for defrauding people out of 32 million dollars.
Think about how insane Stinkey would be if Hillary's national finance chairman was forced to resign after being indicted for embezzlement and fraud. He would be off the charts with hatred for her (well he already is) but does he rail about the non-coverage of Romney's sordid scandals. Of course not.
Republicans: Hypocrites who can never see the a beam in their own eye.
Posted by Wes on September 13, 2007 03:42 PMPoor impotent Brian, lying in his shrill little voice like an idiot in the wilderness.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 03:42 PMMary - Just because you agree to put the cookie back doesn't erase the fact that your hand was in the jar.
Whether or not Hillary knew the money was dirty isn't the point. If someone raising such large amounts of cash for your campaign that he is nicknamed Hillraiser, you'd be wise to know who this person is before accepting the money.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 04:05 PMAnd KW undoubtedly keeps in mind the fact that this whole "bundling" approach started with the Bush Pioneers. At last count 4 Pioneers have been convicted of crimes, 2 are under indictment, and one under investigation. 3 have been convicted of politically-related crimes.
And no, Bush did not give back any money they raised. Not one goddamn dime.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 04:15 PMLet's face it...both parties are shamelessly corrupt. If it's not Hillary then it's one of the many who took money from Abramoff and his stable of special interests, all looking for political favors. Until their influence is nipped in the bud, nothing is going to ever change. Us peons can't buy them off with so many millions so why should our politicians listen to us. The status quo is more like legalized bribery than anything else.
Posted by Chimpo on September 13, 2007 04:32 PMMongoose, no Vulcan mind meld on this, one lightning scar on my head is enough.
I really miss Denver and your talk of flying in and going out to dinner with (?) was painful.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 04:34 PM
So anon 4:15 - You're basically defending Hillary's right to receive illegal campaign contributions on the grounds that others have done it before?
B, B, Bu, But, But the Republicans defense is it then?
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 04:37 PMKW -
Well said. Apparently the Hillary campaign did look into Mr. Hsu twice, but because he used his middle names for the California fraud, they didn't pick it up.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004174.php
Nonetheless, you have to admit that having made that mistake twice, the only honorable thing left to do is return the money to the original donors, which was done by Ms. Clinton.
Mary appears to be merely pointing out that that standard wasn't met by previous Republican bundling schemers.
Posted by Con Mor on September 13, 2007 04:41 PMSure, why not, K-Dub? The "B, B, Bu, But, But Clinton . . ." defense doesn't seem to bother you at all, so why knock the very same thing?
Or is this another example of that coveted republican consistency? (-sarcasm)
Posted by Free of the Blinders of Jesus-uh on September 13, 2007 04:42 PMKW,
The only "B, B, Bu, But" here is you, butthead.
FACT: Clinton gave the money back, even though much of it was not tainted.
FACT: Bush took money from ciminals and kept it.
Stick that up your apologist ass.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 05:18 PMAaah, the ever expanding vocabulary of wee educated liberals.
Does your mother know you talk like that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Con Mor - The "standard" isn't ever exceptable if corruption is involved.
I've stated here many times, I don't care which side of the aisle, no one should get a pass. Not even the pres.
Unless we band together and quit this partisan blame game, these career politicians will just continue to get richer at our expense.
Time for some much needed house cleaning.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 05:29 PMIsn't this same clown that was tied directly to the Chinese "fundraising" for slick willies campaigns?
Never mind that anyway - they are all corrupt, Dems and Repubs. Don't vote party they'll screw you either way.
The real issue isn't whether the Clinton or Bush gave back tainted money. Stinkey is complaining that the press isn't whoring this story on page one every day. I would think better of the RMN Op-Ed staff if they would make the same claim about Alan Fabian and his dirty money. If you want to claim that politics is corrupted by money fine. Back campaign reform legislation. There are some worthwhile proposals such as public financing. Take the cash component out of campaigning and you take the corruption factor out. OK that might be a stretch because Republicans would find a way to take care of Aunt Edna for some influence but maybe by and large you could. Quit blaming the press for supposed lapses in fairness. Both sides take money to win and both sides give too much influence to questionable people. Stinkey as a legitimate issue with tainted campaign money but his pity pot protests about biased coverage is a joke.
Posted by Wes on September 13, 2007 05:43 PMWes - We just never can agree on whether the media is right or left slanted so we may as well start a different topic.
Besides, I'm sure there'll be more Stuckey letters again any day now.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 05:53 PMSharon B
Wise move in protecting the brain from insidious assaults.
"...your talk of flying in and going out to dinner with (?) was painful."
I live in Denver. I was flying back from a business meeting in Northern Idaho.
Posted by mongoose on September 13, 2007 06:12 PMKW -
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "corruption"; politicians accept money (limited to... $2k/individual/year? I'm not sure) to run their campaigns; Shillary returned the cash to the original donors because the guy who bundled them was a crook. To my knowledge, returning that money was a first, and the only honorable thing left to do.
Is that the same thing as quid pro quo (how I define "corruption")? Is the press giving Shillary a pass? It's all over the place. Is the press giving Twit Romney a pass? It's not all over the place, and that was *a member of his campaign.*
So you can say Shillary should have vetted Hillraiser Hsu better, but you should have even more ire directed at Romney. So should the press, and that's really my only point; this is "Clinton Corruption" but is no different than business as usual for Republicans, and *at least* she returned it when she found out.
I personally think Shillary Clinton - like a great lawyer - is willing to play out of bounds and I don't want her as President. But "chalk on the cleats" is an expression authored by Karl Rove; it is something I have come to expect in politics at this level.
If donations to campaigns are not "exceptable" [sic] to you, then I should hope you'd be behind the more progressive campaign finance law changes. Certainly I would think you'd be against any candidate who provides so much as the appearance of quid pro quo especially of well connected oil & defense contractors, Indian gambling casinos, etc. and distinguish between that and actually returning money from a hustler where there is no appearance of quid pro quo, at least in this instance.
But hey, I like the idea. If politicians are accepting bribes, prosecute them equally in the press, public opinion, etc.
Mongoose, I lived in Denver for years, really miss it.
I grew up in Morrison, lived on Canyon Vista Drive and had a super view of Red Rocks. I see now that the suburbs have reached there. Wow, that is amazing to me.
We were country back then.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 09:29 PMKeith,
Why are you bitching about the Chinese? these guys are Bush's best friends along with the Saudi's. If you want to find Osama just look in the lincoln bedroom with the film crew from the whitehouse..
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 14, 2007 12:21 AMKW - according to what I read, the Clinton campaign did a check, which did not turn up the 10 year old indictment. The Clinton campaign also announced that going forward it would dig even deeper. Returning $850,000 - which, by the way, didn't have to be returned - during a campaign that is forecast to be the most costly in history does indicate good faith - but since it wasn't a GOP candidate taking money from (insert corporate interest here), it must unethical.
Posted by Mary on September 14, 2007 04:51 AMbrain stuckley I love you almost as much as i love 'an amercan'...maybe we cud hangout togrether sumtime, y;know get a quart of crisco and the thre of us have sum good ol boy fun...you is a great american not lik des dumbass librals
Posted by Keith on September 14, 2007 06:50 AMbrain stuckley I love you almost as much as i love 'an amercan'...maybe we cud hangout togrether sumtime, y;know get a quart of crisco and the thre of us have sum good ol boy fun...you is a great american not lik des dumbass librals. Now i now why dey call you brain
Posted by keith on September 14, 2007 06:51 AMHonestly, there is only a handful of Pols on both sides of the aisle that I think that are worth a damn. The ad hominem (arguements?) attacks in make it difficult to even consider the posters view. Or is name calling and verbal assaults the point? Washington needs an enima and it ain't a partisan one. Both parties stink.
Posted by Tom on September 14, 2007 07:30 AMWho did the Hildabeast "return" the money to? Hsu? a charity? Which Charity? The Clinton Library? Ever wonder why the MSM never digs into these, but just believes the pablum spewing from the Hildabeast?
Posted by Dravur on September 14, 2007 09:50 AMCM - In the Clinton situation, Hsu raised money illegally FOR Hillary's campaign.
Fabian wasn't illegally raising money for Romney. His alleged crimes are for business dealings prior to and outside of the campaign.
Romney returned the monies donated personally from Fabian but no monies where illegally collected by Fabian for Romney.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by KW on September 14, 2007 10:25 AMTom: I totally agree with you.
Posted by Anti Lib on September 14, 2007 10:45 AMAnother side of Hilary
Is this really ok with the Dem voters in Colorado? If you vote for Hillary at least you know up front that she is for sale to most bidders. I cant wait for the election if this is the best you can do.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A lawsuit accusing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother of failing to repay debts to a Tennessee carnival operator has been settled.
Tony Rodham was accused of failing to repay $107,000 plus interest to the bankrupt estate of Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, both of whom received a presidential pardon in 2000.
Rodham had claimed in court documents the $107,000 he received from the Gregorys was for consulting services.
The Gregorys received pardons for a bank fraud conviction from President Clinton after Rodham became a paid consultant to United Shows of America, a carnival business the couple owned.
After President Clinton left office, the House Committee on Government Reform found that United Shows paid Rodham $240,000 for undocumented consulting services and that President Clinton was interested in the pardons solely because of his contacts with Rodham.
Another brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid more than $400,000 for his successful efforts to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker.
In the closing hours of his presidency, Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people, including billionaire financier Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 rather than face charges of tax evasion, fraud and making illegal oil deals with Iran.
Rich's ex-wife, songwriter Denise Rich, contributed $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library project, $1.1 million to the Democratic Party and at least $109,000 to Hillary Clinton's bid for the Senate.
Hillary Clinton, who has been critical of President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, said her husband's pardons were simply a routine exercise.
I gave some money to a candidate one time: I saw Pat Shroeder on 16th St. (long before the mall). I gave her $10. She and her rich lawyer husband who got her elected probably went out to lunch on my dime. I want my dime returned with interest.
Deicide Corner: Your friendly infidel.
Posted by RG Deicide: r22037@yahoo (Free: FreeThought Today: ffrf.org) on September 17, 2007 12:26 PM