Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pgardn
A short blurb from my Sister-in-Law who works for Corning.
In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that provided hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.
And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign....
Corning ... and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005...
So business got a lot better and the workers felt very gratified. First Democrat to ever receive money from Corning. Heck, 10,000 bucks, they just loaded her up didnt they Cannon? Drop in the bucket compared to what Rep. received from this company. BTW, Clinton intitiated the contact after reading about the problem and before any money came in for her re-election. So you did not benefit and no one you know has... I guess that covers NY.
Again it is very easy to criticize and not find anything positive about the party or person you dont particularly like. So we play this game of destruction instead of asking about anything positive. Which is exactly why politicians use Ads to slay opponents, instead of stating what they have done and will do. Its much easier to bust a bridge apart than to build one. Thats why I hate politics. Because as one reads this thread, it is clear that kicking is easier than applying a cast.
Its the same thing Dems do with Iraq. And your plan? Oh... the plans start to arise after Bush has made a decision about how to clean up a mess. But first all we do is just scream about the mess, with now idea how to clean the mess up.
Just leave Iraq immediately. Quite a plan... Very well thought out. Less well thought out than the plan to send only 120,000 troops in the first place, when 350,000 were recommended by a number of Generals. How many Democrats stood up and said this is clearly not enough troops after voting yes...?
I prefer builders, not destroyers. So lets see the smearing continue... because its so damn easy.
|
It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.
If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.
(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)