Edwards takes lobbyists' gifts, using loophole

[HFishbine]

WASHINGTON (AP) - While Democrat John Edwards boasts that he hasn't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists for his presidential campaign, he has accepted thousands of dollars from people in the capital's lobbying profession or their spouses and children.

The givers range from former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta, a registered Washington lobbyist, to the head of the National Education Association, the nation's premier teachers' lobby, an Associated Press review of Edwards' campaign finance reports found.

more: http://www.news-record.com/election/edwards/edwardsgifts030204.htm

[Warren Stuart]

1. Loophole?

What effin planet are you from???????

The Democrats are running against the most ruthless, corrupt, facist organization since WW II, and your criping about loopholes?

Whose side are you on?

[HFishbine]

2. That was the headline

in the moderately liberal newspaper.

[liberalnurse]

3. Okay, do you feel better now?

More DU road rage.......:boring:

[Warren Stuart]

12. He posted an article without any comment

He didn't take a position, there is no way to know where he is going with this.

I thought if you posted an article you had to state what your position is.

[papau]

5. There is no "loophole" -if donor not lobbyist you do not call him lobbyist

"Edwards' campaign said it accepted the money because the donors weren't registered to represent a specific client at the time of their donation, even though they may have been listed as Washington lobbyists beforehand or afterward."

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. He IS making the fact that he does not accept campaign $$ from lobbyists

an issue. Perhaps he shouldn't be doing that in light of these relevations.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. On the "destroy Edwards at all costs" side, whadja think?

This poster has been using every gotcha, and "looking for it" excuse to slander Edwards' character for quite some time.

[HFishbine]

21. And attacking the messenger

is a great defense, especially when the messenger merely posted an article from a legitimate news source as published in a North Carolina newspaper.

[PurityOfEssence]

merely innocently posted it out of altruistic duty for the common good

Oh please.

One can easily go through the news and find articles to hammer and slag ANY candidate. That doesn't make the candidates equally bad or anything of the sort.

You selectively and vigorously seek to marginalize Edwards; at least have the decency to admit it. I fully admit my partisanship and disdain for various candidates, yet I don't go out and actively try to find articles against them and then feign some Captain Renaud form of outrage and disappointment. At least admit that you're a vigorous and blinkered opponent of the man; you're not fooling anyone.

A "messenger" is someone who was innocently sent by someone else. Who sent you? The great god of truth to whom you owe fealty out of moral beauty? You weren't a messenger in this case, you were a deliberate partisan, seeking out information to actively cause ill to a candidate. That's fair, if one ADMITS IT, but to hide behind the rectitude of a news source while also intimating that one is simply performing a sacred and impartial service to us all by being a dutiful conduit of the truth is a self-serving fabrication of laughable proportions.

The "messenger" in this instance IS the problem, which is precisely why I took this tack: you are extremely partisan on the subject, vigorously pursue your agendum and won't cop to it.

Come on, admit it: you can't stand the guy and you go out of your way to ruin his chances, even to the point of skewing information.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. deleted duplicate

I beat the point into the ground enough without having it posted twice; sorry folks...

[colonel odis]

4. i'm really surprised at the depth of dislike for edwards

shown on here every day.

the republicans want desperately to run against kerry. i wonder why so many du-ers echo it.

[Warren Stuart]

7. I wonder too

Who does this really benefit?

[HFishbine]

8. I suppose

it only benefits those who are interested in judging the honesty of a candidate's claims and those for whom hypocrisy is not an admirable trait. All others may carry on with hands over eyes and ears.

[Edwards4President]

10. I don't believe for a moment that this is your motive

You've been beating this dead horse for months, trying to smear John Edwards with anything you can find.

We don't have our hands over our eyes and ears. In fact, we've peeped your card. Your obsessive disdain for Edwards has been noted.

Thank you.

Next.

[HFishbine]

11. Okie Dokie, Dear

Easier to attack the messenger than to deal with the facts at hand. I understand.

And in case you hadn't noticed, this "dead horse" is from TODAY in an article from a liberal newspaper in Edwards' home state.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. I do not dislike Edwards

But I do not think that he is "ready for prime time." If he were the nominee, Republicans would not hesitate to use any skeletons that are found in his closet.

[Warren Stuart]

13. And if the Republicans can't find any skeletons

Then we can count on those from within our own ranks to point them out for them.

Nice. Keep the slime coming, that's the best way to get immunity to it, huh?

[Edwards4President]

14. If this is the best "skeleton" they can find then - bring it on . . .

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Actually, the Associated Press found this skeleton

[Edwards4President]

16. I see - when the press reports negative stories about Dean and & Clark

they are working in cahoots with the right wing to destroy Bush's toughest competition, but when they write something negative about Edwards, they are an objective, honest, fair and balanced source?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Absolutley not

I do not believe that the press has any agenda to try to destroy Bush's toughest competition. Dean and Clark both had weakness which came out during the primary process. It is much better than those problems becoming evident during the general election, when it would be too late.

[Warren Stuart]

18. Excuuuuuuuuse Me!

"I do not believe that the press has any agenda to try to destroy Bush's toughest competition"

Lying about Love Canal
Lying about the internet
Changing the tone
Harken vs Whitewater?
43,000 stories about Clinton's College deferment vs several dozen stories that never explained Bush's military record.
Fair and balanced?
Fair and balanced?
Fair and balanced?
Fair and balanced?
Fair and balanced?

You're kidding right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Just watching the debates, many people were turned off by Gore

And Gore did say that he took the initiative in creating the Internet.

[redqueen]

22. Holy crap

Yeah, he did say that, Freddie.

But are you SERIOUSLY telling me you didn't hear the 'HE SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET' canard from just about every mainstream media outlet there is?

[Warren Stuart]

23. Brillant, just priceless, they trained you well

You know what the answer is, is any chance YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCKING QUESTION WAS????????

In the context of the conversation, that was an accurate answer to a question.


What was the question?

[colonel odis]

25. this kind of bullshit is why edwards won't get the nomination

and bush will get to keep the white house.

i'll send a postcard when i get to canada.