What more do you need?
You are so cynical.
Dan
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
What more do you need?
You are so cynical.
Dan
Dave the name Bush does not appear in that story. But since you mentioned it on in your post, can I mention Roger "pardon me" Clinton? Or should I have said Roger "pardon him" Clinton.
Hi, J.
There's been some of that for a long time, but it's gotten worse lately. Rhenquist's daughter is another example, to say nothing of the FCC head that's been in the news so much lately after the Janet Jackson flap. He's Colin Powell's son!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Paul, I wonder what that percentage was. Looking into that deal, it seems like it was an 18 Billion dollar deal. Even 1/1000 of one percent of that for a commission would be a remarkable pile of change. Reading on the situation a bit, I found the statement that she and her husband won't release their income tax records, so so far we don't know.
I did find a list of her clients, though:
American Airlines
American Association of Airport Executives
American Concrete Pavement Association
American Trucking Associations
Boeing
Centennial Airport, Englewood, Colorado
Hopkins International Airport, Cleveland
L-3 Communications, maker of cockpit technology
Loral Space and Communications
Northwest Airlines
Schering-Plough, a pharmaceutical company
United Technologies, a defense contractor
(Source: the Secretary of the Senate).
Note: Schering-Plough makes Claritin, the drug in the attempt to get a patent extension that caused such a furor.
Let's see now, is this so unheard of and uncommon. I'll bet the books are full of stories, over all the years from day one.
Wasn't there something about Kerry and the Vietnamese Government recently ? And didn't his relative benefit from Kerry's efforts ?
But if a Republican does the same thing, even when not as blatant as Kerry's, then it's wrong ?
That's a new one to me, Del, and I follow these things pretty carefully. Link, please?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
....it didn't catch your eye, but this has been in several of the posts recently, with different links. I have no inclination to research for you, but here is a sample:
As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, created in 1991 to investigate reports that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam, Kerry badgered the panel into voting that no American servicemen remained in Vietnam.
?[N]o one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry,? noted U.S. Veteran Dispatch.
?But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992,? reported the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, ?when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.?
The ?odd coincidence,? according to FrontPageMagazine.com, involved a deal worth $905 million.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
Hi Dave,
This confuses two issues.
1. The laws of Congress as regards doing business with family members. This needs to be changed. But to be fair, this is nothing that is the sole province of either party.
2. This Congressman's efforts on behalf of a few Serbs. The association with Milosevic seems to be thrown into issue #1 in a way as to make it seem more sinister. Milosevic has been in jail for a few years now, and supposedly the intelligence is that these guys were close to him. There isn't even an allegation that they might have been involved in war crimes is there? Seems like a bit of hyping over the things easiest to demonize -- rich and Serbian.
Evie ![]()
pointing to a new instance of an old (and not illegal) practice deeply enmeshed into the fabric of BOTH parties.
This is not a new thing nor is it any more prevalent today than it was 30 years ago or 50 years ago or 150 years ago--look at familial business connections and advocates In the Lincoln Administration and the FDR Administration (and although I haven't looked it would not come as a surprise to note it in the Washington Administration).
If you think it is more prevalent today you have simply not done your homework before accepting another pet theory as fact.