King Coal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:32 PM
Original message |
So why did Hillary give back the money? |
|
That's the question all the Freepers here are asking.
|
Vincardog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message |
1. To avoid the appearance of impropriety I will bet |
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Because she likes to act like a Republican. |
Inland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I mean, by giving it back she certainly creates the impression that taking it in the first place was wrong.
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
4. She's not at politically astute as she thinks she is. |
|
She just ends up looking like she did something wrong taking it to begin with.
And if the money is from an Indian tribe, it's an insult to them.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
The Indian tribes have been giving money to Dems for years! Dumb move on Hill's part, imho. Only those who got money directly from Abramoff should worry, really. THAT is the tainted money, not direct contributions from a Tribe that regularly makes contributions!
|
Oleladylib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It WAS the smart thing to do.. |
|
but, then again Hilary is damned if she does or damned if she doesn't ..even here..
|
tyedyeto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. It was NOT the smart thing to do. |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-09-06 03:46 PM by tyedyeto
Makes her look just as corrupt as the Repugs who are giving back money. Look at Harry Reid for a smart example. He will not give it back because it didn't come from Abramoff, it came directly from tribes ... therefore, the money is NOT tainted and shouldn't be given away to some charity who has nothing to do with where the money came from.
On edit:
Welcome to DU :hi:
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Why didn't Hillary stand - up for those calling for investigations in Ohio |
|
The Dems are playing the same game as repugs - if it hurts THEM -- they turn a deaf ear when americans need them the most. - Politics makes the mob at its worse seem like childs play.
They use Bush to get their foot in the door for oil in the middle east and whether Kerry or Hillary replaces Bush --- the war will simply take off where Bush left off citing it'll take years to undo the Bush damage. --
|
King Coal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Why didn't Hillary standup for Bush's impeachment for his NSA |
|
bullshit?
Hillary is out in my book.
|
Catherine Vincent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Imo, I don't think Congress should donate the money back. |
|
The money from the tribes. Giving it back makes them look like they did something wrong, which they didn't.
|
Generator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Because Hillary is just like Bill |
|
She caves in if she thinks it's the thing to do.
|
Tierra_y_Libertad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:50 PM
Response to Original message |
12. CYA. What else? Why did she take it in the first place? |
|
Why do politicians take money from corporations while being allegedly against the corporations? To get elected so they can weasel out of real campaign finance reform and keep this country an oligarchy.
|
mattclearing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. Very few are allegedly against the corporations. |
|
Most of them are perfectly willing to tell you that they have business interests at heart.
|
msgadget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Because the president did |
|
($6000 of the total contribution) and so did Reid. As one caller to C-Span pointed out, if you rob a bank but later return the money, you've still robbed that bank. If she took that money in good faith and did not allow it to influence any decisions made on our behalf then she had no reason to return it. However, it will surely become an election issue either way so she'll have to publicly revisit the issue very soon.
|
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. Reid gave nothing back, because he says he did nothing wrong. NT |
msgadget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. Thank you, I was wrong |
|
Last week I was pissed to read and hear that he had returned the money but I just looked it up and found quotes directly from his office that he did NOT because they were legal contributions. He's set an example for democrats to follow but Hillary has decided instead to follow the example of her colleagues from the right. Her choice and her's to answer for.
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:56 PM
Response to Original message |
15. so the msm couldn't report that she didn't...! |
Rex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
RandomKoolzip
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message |
19. In two years, the nuance needed to explain this whole Abramoff thing |
|
will have disappeared, and all that people will be able to remember is that "Money was given to politicians for favors, and the good ones gave it back."
It sucks, but people aren't going to remember that tribes gave $ directly to Dems without Abramoff acting as liason, while Abramoff gave lots and lots of $ directly to Repukes. Remember, America reads at a fourth grade level.
She's giving it back so that it'll APPEAR that she's on the side of good.
|
msgadget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
and I agree with you but I wonder if in the near term her actions will help take leverage away from anyone attempting real reform on K Street. If the money was legal and did not buy influence, returning it so long after receiving it is meaningless. Instead it suggests that accepting money from lobbyists is wrong. Why not return all the money from all the lobbyists? To be on the side of 'good' that's what one would have to do.
I just hope this issue receives attention during and after the Alito hearings.
|
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-09-06 04:39 PM
Response to Original message |
22. IMO giving it back looks much worse than keeping it would have been |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 04:26 PM
Response to Original message |