Comments (16)

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 12:36 PM:

Jeff Shockey, a staffer to Congressman Jerry Lewis, pulled this same crap. It was unethical then too.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008701.php

profmarcus wrote on May 16, 2007 1:03 PM:

the sheer number of outrages perpetrated by the bush administration is overwhelming... the citizenry had been numbed and dumbed down as it is, but the steady torrent of abuses and illegal acts that pour forth from bushco only makes it that much worse...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Eric Ferguson wrote on May 16, 2007 1:03 PM:

Want to bet this walking conflict of interest won't be confirmed, but will become a recess appointment? I contacted my Democratic senator and suggested finding some way to technically never go into recess.

drsteveb wrote on May 16, 2007 1:23 PM:

Actually, I agree... it won't affect his view... he was proindustry and antiregulation before, fox guarding hen house, with or without this payment.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 1:30 PM:

While he was deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, J. Steven Griles received $284,000 a year for four years from his old lobbying firm. He ended up in prison.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 16, 2007 2:11 PM:

Last June, I wrote about Grover Norquist's 2004 $600k grant to GOP front, the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights (NAWER) in the TPM Cafe (link below). The $600k grant was huge compared to the usual size of Americans For Tax Reform (ATR) grants.

A number of people suggested that ATR passed the money through to NAWER from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). NAWER itself is prohibited by law from accepting corporate contributions.

That NAM was behind the ATR's $600k NAWER grant is not farfetched. In fact, one of ATR's employees accepted a job with NAM.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

"But, not to worry, Baroody has assured everyone that the payment won’t influence his impartiality."

Impartiality must exist before it can be influenced. None exists here, it's all corporate whore, all the time.

Kirk Liddell wrote on May 16, 2007 2:49 PM:

NAM. Figures.

For those who have forgotten, Chairman of NAM's legal issues policy committee, Kirk Liddell (Armstrong asbestos lawsuits) was at the White House for the signing of the Class Action Fairness Act back in 2005.

NAM & BIPAC are two lobbying groups everyone should know about but don't.

georgia wrote on May 16, 2007 3:21 PM:

Nothing says he needs to be confirmed. Bring it to a vote, and vote him down. It's the quickest and easiest way to avoid a recess appointment

regular lurker wrote on May 16, 2007 4:19 PM:

Why do working class people continue to vote for Republicans? I just don't get it.

ScottW wrote on May 16, 2007 4:59 PM:

This is starting to look like the Clinton impeachment hearings. "Can you please define is".

The difference of course is one was invading a man's personal life and the other is about corruption and manipulation at the highest ranks.

Quit messing around Dems, we got Albert in at least 5 lies, time to start the punishment part of these proceedings. Seriously, at what point are the lies and 'I don't recalls' going to have some sort of consequences ??

It would also force some people to actually vote, rather then stand back and see what political fall out is going to happen.

tjallen wrote on May 16, 2007 6:50 PM:

Do you suppose the Dems have to end the war first, before impeaching Bush? It will be difficult, I already hear the outcry, "Time of War! Time of War! You cannot impeach the Commander in Chief during Time of War!"

Of course, it's false; Congress can impeach anytime... but as a practical matter, it would be easier to impeach the president, if the war was ended first.

Of course, that is a tall order, end the war and impeach the president, in less than 2 years. I guess I'd settle for end the war, and mire them in scandal, if I had to settle for just one.

tjallen

Tom wrote on May 16, 2007 8:08 PM:

This isn't fair to keep picking on George W. Bush. He's still our president, and we should support him.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 11:10 PM:

The advantage of having a democratic society rather than a dictatorship is that you can always be against the president and fight him with all the tools we have at our disposal if you think he's on the wrong path: press, elections, popular opinion. Past presidents such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt agree wholeheartedly.
Tom seems to think that we have an absolute ruler that should be subserviently followed without question. He's still our president, true, and that's a disaster. I see no Constitutional requirement that we support the president other than whatever legal requirements we have.
I'm big on living in a free democratic society which obviously is against obeying our leaders without question. Our president is allowing the destruction of our armed forces in a meatgrinder of civil wars under the claimed reason of self defense against terrorism. I see no reason, legal or otherwise, to publically support the president when I believe he is ruining the country, the military, the society.

Thank god for freedom.

znak mtaquwlo wrote on August 11, 2007 5:48 AM:

zexcsi yfguo yeglh koexatvfp detszrbnc uskhgmbw yuxolzc

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:50 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye