Comments (27)

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 11:21 AM:

Care to speculate on whose Corporate jets Sens Bond, Lott and others flew to get up to Girdwood, Alaska?

Last I checked there wasn't an hourly shuttle up there.

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 11:30 AM:

Is it O.K. if private citizens make legal donations at least?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 22, 2007 11:38 AM:

Ted's donor list reads like a list of the usual suspects . . . Perhaps someone should call the WE-TIP Hotline and alert the FBI.

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 11:47 AM:

Don't worry, Adolf -- if Hillary gets back into the White House, all such political donations and FBI files will once again mysteriously disappear only to reappear after tax audits and other political scores are settled -- at least Bush only sent suspected terrorists to Gitmo.

aimai wrote on October 22, 2007 12:13 PM:

Jake D,
can I use that? Its a spectacular example of projection. "At least Bush only sent suspected terrorists to gitmo" is factually incorrect. We can't know who bush sent to gitmo because he has refused to tell us. And, in fact, the people he sent *for torture,* like Mahar Arar weren't "suspected terrorists" they were "wrongfully suspected innocent people." But aside from *that* your accusation that Bush's crimes are legitimated because hypothetically Hillary clinton will do worse is the most bizarre kind of retroactive immunity deal I've ever seen. I think *Hitler's* crimes will someday pale in comparison to those committed by the aliens from planet Garg, so what? Does that actually diminish Hitler's crimes? Not much.

aimai

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 12:27 PM:

Feel free to use it all -- no one who was KNOWN TO BUSH as innocent was sent to Gitmo -- until you can prove otherwise, my point stands. Do you really want to discuss what we do know about Arar?

Anonymous wrote on October 22, 2007 12:29 PM:

Jake D is a Social Security-collecting troll. Ignore him as he sucks off the government teat and makes snide comments.

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 12:29 PM:

This thread is obviously about legal donations to Stevens, but if TPM ever starts a thread about former Gitmo prisoners who were released and picked up again fighting the U.S. ON THE BATTLEFIELD (fat chance), I would be happy to discuss that there.

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 12:33 PM:

Why shouldn't I collect the money I paid into Social Security?! At least I don't post anonymously ; )

Doc Rock wrote on October 22, 2007 12:35 PM:

I presume these gifts (trip expenses) have been declared on their income tax returns?

megisi wrote on October 22, 2007 12:41 PM:

Reading these sick GOPer twitches justify any sort of immoral, illegal or republic-damaging behavior by their party leaders using whatever nonsense burbles up through the flatulent murk of their fetid soulless recesses before actually reaching their prehensile nerve bundles and, thence, oozing into the light used to be entertaining.

Now it just makes me want to vomit.

mkolb wrote on October 22, 2007 12:49 PM:

If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to Stephens and friends.

Aren't there regulations about what you can spend campaign contributions on? How can Sen. Hatch, for instance, take from funds given to him in good faith that they'll be used to put him back in office and give them to someone with no relation to his constituents for a purpose other than a campaign?

If there are so many congresspeople needing defense funds, perhaps the RNCC and the DNC should be providing the funding, since.

freepatriot wrote on October 22, 2007 1:56 PM:

hey, trolls like jake d are a good sign

if we didn't have the bastards running scared, childish tactics like trolling wouldn't be needed

enjoy jake's comments

it means we're making progress

now let's all sit back and enjoy jake's denial rant

Sullyman wrote on October 22, 2007 2:47 PM:

Jake D.,

Welcome! Please continue to spout your mindless talking points. You are a fine representative of the Republican Party, and it's important that we keep in mind the kind of mindset we are dealing with. It would be downright hilarious if the stakes weren't so high.

Anyway, come on in and defend your corrupt zealot politicians standing arm-in-arm with ANOTHER man who recently pleaded guilty to felony corruption charges.

oldtree wrote on October 22, 2007 3:35 PM:

It seems there is no more little games about hiding contributions to criminals. Senators give money for the re election of someone they know to be criminally involved with racketeering?

country is broken, good luck to you all

Rusty Austin wrote on October 22, 2007 4:07 PM:

It's okay, he is going to end up in jail just like the Dukestir, then all that money will be for naught...

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 4:54 PM:

I am actually registered Independent -- no ILLEGAL activity has been uncovered in any of the donations so far -- I just call 'em like I see 'em. I donated to Scooter Libby AFTER he was convicted too. Nothing "illegal" about that. So sorry if that made any of you nauseous.

SocraticGadfly wrote on October 22, 2007 5:10 PM:

Jack D., so, in essence, you're saying it's OK for Shrub to presume people guilty until they're proven innocent? Just want to make sure that's the gist of what you're saying, and what you're really meaning, with the "Bush didn't know they were innocent comment."

Just want to make sure I understand you correctly that the president can jail people on suspicion.

Does he stare into their eyes and look into their souls, as he so accurately did with Vlad the Impaler Putin?

JTH wrote on October 22, 2007 5:37 PM:

I'd really like to see candidates voluntarily refuse to accept donations from any person or entity who cannot legally vote for them. I realize that we can't violate first amendment rights by passing a law that would enforce such a rule, but it sure would be refreshing to have the choice of a candidate who depended only on his/her own potential voters for campaign support.

Jake D. wrote on October 22, 2007 5:59 PM:

Of course the (wartime) President can jail enemy combatants based simply on suspicion -- even a lowly FBI agent can arrest someone based on suspicion -- just ask the U.S. Supreme Court. That does not carry with it any judicial determination of guilt. He also does not even need to stare into their eyes and look into their souls -- he simply signs the President Determination -- you'd prefer we fight the war on terrorism differently? Do you think we would have won WWII if American courts were forced to take every Jap and German POW to trial in the U.S.?!

Roberta wrote on October 22, 2007 10:02 PM:

Someone please explain to me how we are "at war" and that we have a "wartime" president.

The US invaded Iraq, ousted its government, and declared victory. That was a war, and it was short and decisive. The occupation in Iraq is not part of the war, because the war ended.

The so-called "war on terror" does not fit the definition of war: a state of armed conflict between nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Al Qaeda and other extremists who aim at the destruction of the US and other countries/societies/ideologies are not associated with any particular nations or states. Even taking al Qaeda on its own, it is not limited to one nation or state, but insinuates itself wherever it can find a place that won't or can't throw it out, relying on social and political chaos for establishing operations.

Even if you see war as a state of conflict, competition, or hostility between different people or groups, it doesn't really work. It's not that discretely defined.

Israel isn't even at war with Palestinians today. Israel occupies the Palestinian territories, and Palestinian terrorists are dealt with through counter-terrorism measures.

Indeed, terrorism as it exists worldwide and the terrorism specific to Islamic extremists must be fought against. To call the fight against terrorism a "war" gives carte blanche to the "war" government to behave in ways that true war's exigencies might require.

This country, while it has suffered a loss of life and health of too many of its soldiers in Iraq, has undergone none of the other conditions a nation at war experiences. There is no draft, there are no shortages, there is no sacrifice for the war effort (other than above), and, while there can and probably will be an attempted or successful terrorist attack sometime in the future, this country is in no imminent danger from an organized war machine, such as in World War II.

I want to propose that progressives stop buying into the propagandist terminology that is "the war on terror." See this fight for what it is: A serious need to discover and dismantle the various networks of extremists that threaten the general safety of people in general, not countries or states in particular. Spain and Bali, which have experienced attacks from ostensibly the same terrorists the US is at "war" with have not even provided troops to Iraq. The term "war" just doesn't make sense.

Denounce terrorism and support efforts to block its growth and aid, but leave the rhetoric--and license--of war for a conflict that justifies it. And close a door on those who declare the erosion of our and other civil rights as necessary because we are "at war."

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 12:16 AM:

Sen. Ted Stevens' contributors, like VECO executives, gave the money to Senators who are giving the money to Stevens. Is this an end run on limitations?

Fellow Traveler wrote on October 23, 2007 9:38 AM:

While the Republicans certainly should distance themselves from Ted Stevens (not condemn- he has not been convicted of any crime), the Demos should certainly be expressing their concern over the shocking news that Demo head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, J.D. Rockefeller, IV, has,in recent days, taken $42,000 from the big telecom companies and now supports granting them immunity from prosecution for illegally spying on American citizens (he had only received a few grand over the last four or five years from these folks.) I notice that, although this story appears prominently in today's NY Times, there is virtually nothing about it on the blogs, including TPM's front page.

Corruption is corruption. A Demo Party that is in the pocket of the same special interests who control the Repubenron Party, is worthless in helping to reform the system, end the illegal, immoral, and ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, or to restore our much abused civil liberties. We cannot save the country until we save the Democratic Party and we cannot save the Demo Party until we free it from the corrupting influence of the DLC "Wall Street" Democrats.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:08 AM:

Fellow Traveler:

You REALLY wonder why Josh and gang won't post a single thread about Democratic corruption?

aklocal wrote on October 23, 2007 12:01 PM:

Nice redirection Jake D. Jump in a thread and throw red herring. Impressive. I guess this site really bugs you.

johnnydoughey wrote on October 23, 2007 12:05 PM:

"Aren't there regulations about what you can spend campaign contributions on? "

Remember...Congress makes the rules. I do not know if it has changed recently, but twenty years ago, while everyone else had minimum wage laws, Congress could still pay below minimum wages, hire according to racial desires... anything it wanted.

These folks protect their own interests first, second and always. they have, over the years, become fully self employed with their own laws and regulations. don't expect this to change as long as we support their actions by reelecting them into office...

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

aklocal:

"Red herring"?! If TPM thinks it's wrong for U.S. Senators to make legal campaign contributions, I think it's relevant to ask if it is O.K. for private citizens to make legal donations at least. Were you referring to a different post of mine?