View Full Version : Harry Reid Caught in Abramoff Plea Deal
The Democratic Corruption continues...... #They are all crashing and burning. #
"It turns out that the most prominent player in Abramoff's web of influence was reportedly none other than the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid"
Well, well, well. #Sure sounds like a democratic "Culture of Corruption" already. #Man in just a little over 1 week. #Can you say self destruct? #Anybody wonder why this is coming out now instead of before the election? #Hello media. #Oh, sorry for being so cynical. #Oh, and didn't Bush say the same thing? #"I never met the man". #
Lets see, Murtha wants to take a bribe but not just yet, maybe a little later (on an FBI sting tape), now Reid, seems to have taken money from Abramoff via a back door "Indian Tribe". #Give it up Harry you crooked liar. #Harry Reid is a liar. #Impeach him, recall movement, whatever. #Get rid of the bum.
The more different they seem the more alike they become. #Two down and 3-4 to go.
Harry Reid Crook (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/3/115231.shtml)
K2WH
W5IEI
11-15-2006, 09:46 PM
You will be crucified for revealing truth here.
W8EFA
11-15-2006, 10:05 PM
Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
kg4kww
11-15-2006, 10:18 PM
Good maybe this coward will be run out of office.
W3MIV
11-15-2006, 10:20 PM
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Anybody, even you can edit Wikipedia entries with no accuracy checks. #So your statement supposedly backed up by a suspect website holds no merit.
Reid is guilty and a liar. #I hope he is removed from office because we don't need him screwing up the country.
And as to the "Childish" comment, I only report, you decide.
K2WH
W8EFA
11-15-2006, 10:45 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? #Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. #USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
n4sva
11-15-2006, 11:11 PM
ut oh, Dirty Harry and ABSCAM Murtha in charge http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
w8cbc
11-15-2006, 11:24 PM
I'm given to understand that all the money involved in Abramoff's shenanigans went to Republicans. It makes sense considering who was in absolute power. The Democrats had no influence on anything in government the last four years so why try to bribe them?
Could this just be a Rove-style cheap shot?
W8EFA
11-15-2006, 11:29 PM
Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,19:24)]I'm given to understand that all the money involved in Abramoff's shenanigans went to Republicans. #It makes sense considering who was in absolute power. #The Democrats had no influence on anything in government the last four years so why try to bribe them?
Could this just be a Rove-style cheap shot?
Absolutely
as soon as I read it I remember these same accusations from last year trying to tie Reid through Indian Tribes he has supported for 30 years to Abramhoff
AGAIN It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
w8cbc
11-15-2006, 11:32 PM
It gives the blind-hate crowd something to do I guess.
n4sva
11-15-2006, 11:40 PM
ABC News (hardly a right-wing org) is now picking it up, so maybe NewsMax knew what they were talking about
Harry's In Trouble (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html)
W3MIV
11-15-2006, 11:49 PM
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:45)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? #Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. #USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
Still avoiding the meat of the issue. Why not discuss the content of the report? Too much truth in it for you?
What difference is the date? Did I miss the passing of a statute of limitations that foreclosed inquiry and prosecution for corruption?
Since you have nothing to offer in defense of this guy, all you want to do is yowl at the posters and the source of the news.
Again, why do you not discuss the issue itself?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
w8cbc
11-15-2006, 11:54 PM
Oh, I know the story's getting around - I heard about it some hours ago. My question is whether the allegations carry any substance.
Recall that I'm the guy who gave both Foley and Haggard the benefit of the doubt here before they made their admissions. So if the blind-hate gang want to jump all over me for raising questions in this case, I have a pointed boot ready.
Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,12:54)]Oh, I know the story's getting around - I heard about it some hours ago. #My question is whether the allegations carry any substance.
Recall that I'm the guy who gave both Foley and Haggard the benefit of the doubt here before they made their admissions. #So if the blind-hate gang want to jump all over me for raising questions in this case, I have a pointed boot ready.
I love this. The "Allegations" issue. Did you give Bush any "Benefit of the Doubt" about "Allegations" directed at him? I didn't think so.
And I think the phrase "Old News" orginated with the Dems during the Clinton years. Talking points survive.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? #Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. #USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. You may think you are the other side, but we are all Americans. Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. Issues like this are not one sided. They affect us all. But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
K2WH
w8cbc
11-16-2006, 12:22 AM
Bush hot-and-hornied the country into a useless war.
The evidence is before us for all to see.
How many people has Harry Reid killed?
Can you of the blind-hate contingent answer me this?
Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,13:22)]Bush hot-and-hornied the country into a useless war.
The evidence is before us for all to see.
How many people has Harry Reid killed?
Can you of the blind-hate contingent answer me this?
I'm not sure. #How many people has Reid killed? #Do you know?
Now the tables are turned. #The republicans are the "Blind Hate" crowd. #Of course the left, wasn't. #Right! Answer this Bucky, do you hate Bush?
K2WH
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,14:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Wrong.
Wh's postings are nothing but slime put forward by the right wing noise machines like NewsMax who have an obvious agenda. The noise machine repeats the same crap over and over and over hoping, praying someone with actually believe it.
The public is sick of this type of yellow journalism, and yes, we WILL attack the source of the distortions. NewsMax and other obviously biased publications will NOT set the agenda or define the debate despite the efforts of "true believers" like you and WH.
The NYT and Washington Post (note-"Post"-another lame right wing trick to defame publications the right wing movement doesn't like) are legitimate publications. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are tabloid garbage, organs of right wing zealots like Richard Mellon Scaife.
Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
w8cbc
11-16-2006, 12:42 AM
We of the left, centre, and moderate right have seen what's gone down the last four years in this country and speak against it. We are answered by the extreme right with cheap shots and hate campaigns because they cannot defend what their political bosses have done. The extremists have no moral ground and they know it. After four years of absolute power, their legacy is a quagmire in the middle east, a bankrupt federal government, and a constitution covered with skid marks. It is up to the rest of us to clean all of this up. Damn right some of us are a little smoked off about it.
So long and thanks for all the debt.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 15 2006,16:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? #Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. #USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. #You may think you are #the other side, but we are all Americans. #Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. #Issues like this are not one sided. #They affect us all. #But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
K2WH
WH- Don't EVEN try that argument.
You're the one being divisive and dishonest. I suspect you weren't making that "We're all Americans" argument during the Clinton years. As a matter of fact, every time Bush did something dumb, YOU were one of the toadies that kept bringing up the Clinton administration not matter what the issue.
Another issue is your constant use of the "hate" and "anger" label when applied to Democrats. Get a clue. The only "angry people" are you and your true believers for losing the last election.
The Democrats haven't even taken power yet and you are starting with the sludge and smear campaign. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You and your ilk with NOT define the agenda or the Democratic party.
Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 15 2006,11:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. You may think you are the other side, but we are all Americans. Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. Issues like this are not one sided. They affect us all. But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
K2WH
k2wh from another thread Quote[/b] ]
No, I will not define the democratic agenda but I am really honored that you think I could possibly do that. The dems admit they don't have one. At least they never told anyone and no one ever heard of one. Funny, the media never asked. I think their agenda was to get in power. The country? Oh, they will get around to that after the real agenda.
k2wh from this thread Quote[/b] ]
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. You may think you are the other side, but we are all Americans. Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. Issues like this are not one sided. They affect us all. But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
Emphasis added.
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Nov. 16 2006,08:11)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 15 2006,11:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 15 2006,18:20)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,18:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Instead of the old "shoot-the-messenger" dodge, why don't you refute the information in the article?
Even the NYT and Washington Compost get it right once in a while, why not NewsMax?
And, if you really look at some of its contents, which come and go, WikiPedia is not always much better than NewsMax.
Seems to me that Harry has some 'splaining to do.
Alas, it all seems to fit the pattern that is developing, doesn't it? Murtha. Reid. Alcee Hastings. Who's next?
Are you really that clueless? #Did you read the article?
It is dated Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006 11:50 a.m. EST and is old news, of which nothing has obviously come to fruition.
Again WH and XR. #USE A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE!
The other side does not post sensationalist new threads every day from MoveOn.org and Mother jones
Pathetic
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. #You may think you are #the other side, but we are all Americans. #Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. #Issues like this are not one sided. #They affect us all. #But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
K2WH
k2wh from another thread Quote[/b] ]
No, I will not define the democratic agenda but I am really honored that you think I could possibly do that. #The dems admit they don't have one. #At least they never told anyone and no one ever heard of one. #Funny, the media never asked. #I think their agenda was to get in power. #The country? #Oh, they will get around to that after the real agenda.
k2wh from this thread Quote[/b] ]
BTW, "WE" are not the other side. #You may think you are #the other side, but we are all Americans. #Something I think you forgot just prior to the election. #Issues like this are not one sided. #They affect us all. #But if you feel the need to segragate yourself, feel froggy and leap.
Emphasis added.
OK, W8EFA, define a credible source since any source I give is apparently not credible.
What are your credible sources?
K2WH
First, let’s look at the Newsmax story. Draw your attention to the title. What does it tell you? Nothing. It asks a question. You interpreted it as a statement as you posted this thread with those words as a statement. They fooled you. Shame on them.
Second, the article mentions the Searchlight Leadership fund.
Quote[/b] ] Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," reported the AP. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund.
But if you look at campaign contributions for the year 2002 to this fund, there were no contributions on March 6, 2002. What gives? Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=searchlight%20leadership%20fund&txt2006=&txt2004=&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=1&Cycle1=2002&Cycle2=&Cycle3=&Page=2)
I could go on.
My question is why anyone would want to read this trash knowing the deceit and outright lies prevalent in the stories and comment?
I bring this up as a friendly answer to your question, but I know it will be taken as a bloodbath attack.
Bahrrrr!
Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Nov. 15 2006,18:40)]ABC News (hardly a right-wing org) is now picking it up, so maybe NewsMax knew what they were talking about
Harry's In Trouble (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html)
You mean the network that kissed neo-con bu** and blamed Clinton for 9/11 isn't biased?? Let me know when they report pigs are flying will ya? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=625928) Reports Pigs Fly
Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, March 30
NEWS SUMMARY
Hell freezes over and pigs fly:
KC2KFC
11-17-2006, 09:58 AM
I thought it was the evil corporations that were the big donors. I guess I was wrong.
Blue Chip Investors Top Donor Dossiers (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp)
Top All-Time Donor Profiles (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A)
Just for the heck of it I added up the unions share and the evil corporations share. I left out the associations. This is kind of interesting.
Unions donate $452,014,130
Evil Corporations donate $355,884,617
Unions donate solidly to the democrats. Evil corporations tend to ride the fence or donate to the republicans. Although, there are some of the nicer corporations that swing more toward the democrats.
If I'm not mistaken this "culture of corruption" centers around the money.
w2amr
11-17-2006, 11:08 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 15 2006,15:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Anybody, even you can edit Wikipedia entries with no accuracy checks. #So your statement supposedly backed up by a suspect website holds no merit.
Reid is guilty and a liar. #I hope he is removed from office because we don't need him screwing up the country.
And as to the "Childish" comment, I only report, you decide.
K2WH
Here is the title of the article.
Harry Reid Caught in Abramoff Plea Deal?
Please Notice the ? at the end.
This is the same tactic Fox TV news uses. While discussing something political , the scroll at the bottom of the screen will say "Do Democrats hate America"? "Do Democrats want the terrorists to win"?
n2ize
11-17-2006, 11:56 AM
It's pretty clear the dems are working on the side of the commies.
Where's K2WH's response to no real record of the alleged donation from the Native American tribes in 2002 as the NewsMax article suggests?
Where's any response to this from the neocon group?
KC4HGH
11-17-2006, 09:58 PM
Heh, heh...they don't call him "Dirty Harry" for nothing!
I don't CARE what side of the aisle they're on, there's always Congresscritters on the take!
Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Nov. 17 2006,00:08)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 15 2006,15:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Nov. 15 2006,11:05)]Newsmax - get real. #What a Joke
Quote[/b] ]These gaffes have lead to NewsMax's being labled Yellow journalism [8] It has received harsh criticism from mainstream media for publishing articles that border on sensationalism #From Wikipedia
Of course that fits with WH - who never posts any real news just a bunch of childish garbage
Anybody, even you can edit Wikipedia entries with no accuracy checks. #So your statement supposedly backed up by a suspect website holds no merit.
Reid is guilty and a liar. #I hope he is removed from office because we don't need him screwing up the country.
And as to the "Childish" comment, I only report, you decide.
K2WH
Here is the title of the article.
Harry Reid Caught in Abramoff Plea Deal?
Please Notice the ? at the end.
This is the same tactic Fox TV news uses. While discussing something political , the scroll at the bottom of the screen will say "Do Democrats hate America"? "Do Democrats want the terrorists to win"?
Oh, I noticed the "?" at the end. I guess it comes down to the meaning of "is".
The truth is staring you in the face yet you refuse to see.
Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Nov. 17 2006,10:49)]Where's K2WH's response to no real record of the alleged donation from the Native American tribes in 2002 as the NewsMax article suggests?
Where's any response to this from the neocon group?
Yeah, whats a real record. Is that the opposite of a fake record? Something you dems are famous for.
K2WH
kg6amw
11-18-2006, 02:45 PM
I would expect the republican minority to extend the same courtesies to the democrats as a majority as the democrats did for the republicans when they were the majority. That means hold back on votes via chamber rules and be as obstructive as possible. The democrats may have their plans and agenda set, but it isn’t going anywhere soon -- at least not without republican approval.