The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_...tters___dollars

 

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

 

 

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

 

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raise new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator's government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

During Clinton's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee's senior Republican, said the foundation's charitable efforts "should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton's service," but he acknowledged the potential that conflicts of interest might arise: "Work of the Clinton foundation is a unique complication that will have to be managed with great care and transparency."

 

Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million — including millions from foreign governments — to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.

 

Lugar told Sen. Clinton on Tuesday that her husband's foundation should not accept any more contributions from foreign governments.

 

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton's foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.

 

"Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor," said spokesman Philippe Reines. "In these instances, she was doing what the people of New York elected her to do: Work hard on the issues of importance to them."

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Foundation both declined to answer questions about whether the senator tried to step away from issues directly affecting donors to her husband's charity, and whether the foundation tried to screen out money from those on whose issues the senator had intervened.

 

"Generally, through a combination of rigorous adherence to Senate and FEC income and asset disclosure rules, coupled with the voluntary and unprecedented release of the names of every single Foundation supporter since its inception, the Clintons are by far the most financially transparent former first couple in American history," Reines said.

 

Sen. Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications. PAETEC's chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

 

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday. The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood's membership in CGI in September 2007, and the Chesonis foundation paid $20,000 for it in March 2008, Wood said.

 

The Chesonis Family Foundation made a $10 million pledge last May to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for solar energy research, meeting Wood's commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to act on a project, Wood said.

 

Wood said the Chesonis foundation was unaware of the senator's letter to the FCC on the PAETEC issue and didn't have any contact with her office.

 

PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations to the Clinton foundation. PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC on its behalf, he said.

 

"Yes, PAETEC feels strongly that a competitive telecom environment is in the best interests of New York businesses and consumers," Muller wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "PAETEC has petitioned numerous elected officials in the markets which we serve in an effort to retain the spirit of the Telecom Act of 1996." The issue is still pending at the FCC, and PAETEC remains involved in it, Muller said.

 

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. is also a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, company spokeswoman Amy Rose said. Merck joined CGI in 2006, when dues were $15,000, and also was a member in 2007 and in 2008, when membership dues rose to $20,000. As part of its commitment to CGI, Merck sponsors public health initiatives around the world, Rose said. Merck joined CGI on its own initiative, she said.

 

Sen. Clinton wrote a November 2005 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urging approval of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Merck applied in December 2005 for approval of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and the vaccine was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. Merck is still seeking approval for use in older women, Rose said.

 

Rose said Merck's participation in the Clinton Global Initiative was unrelated to Sen. Clinton's letter. Merck didn't communicate with Clinton or her office about its HPV vaccine and was unaware of her letter before it was sent, Rose said.

 

Another letter involved an issue important to Barr Laboratories. Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote to Leavitt in August 2005 urging that "science, not politics" guide the agency and "that a decision be brought swiftly on Plan B's application." Leavitt's office described the Clinton letter as pertaining to Barr's application for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive also called the morning-after pill.

 

Barr Laboratories gave $10,001 to $25,000 to the Clinton foundation, the charity's donor list shows. Barr joined the Clinton Global Initiative in April 2007, spokeswoman Carol Cox said. Cox didn't comment on Clinton's letter.

 

Several of the letters involve issues directly affecting KeySpan Corp., the energy company now known as National Grid. KeySpan didn't ask the senator to intervene and had no communication with her office about its later donations to the Clinton foundation, said company spokesman Chris Mostyn.

 

KeySpan joined the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007 because it wanted to become involved in the climate change issue, Mostyn said. KeySpan paid $15,000 for its membership in 2007 and $20,000 for 2008, Mostyn said.

 

Clinton joined several other members of Congress from New York in February 2003 asking the Commerce Department to consider an appeal by Islander East, a limited liability company formed by subsidiaries of KeySpan Energy and another company, to build a natural gas pipeline to serve Connecticut, New York City and Long Island, N.Y.

 

Clinton and the other lawmakers wanted the Commerce Department to overturn the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's determination that Islander East's pipeline plan was inconsistent with the state's coastal zone management program. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and other Connecticut lawmakers wrote to Commerce urging denial of Islander East's appeal.

 

Clinton earlier wrote to the Long Island Power Authority and to KeySpan urging them to consider the modernization of KeySpan's New York power plants. Her letter in June 2002 offered her help on the issue. Also in 2002, Clinton wrote the federal government letters on the natural gas Millennium Pipeline Project in which KeySpan was involved, urging an extension of a deadline for public comment and forwarding information on route alternatives.

 

Mostyn said KeySpan didn't ask Clinton to get involved in the issues. The Millennium Pipeline began commercial operations in December, the Islander East project is on hold due to Connecticut's rejection of permits, and the company is working with the Long Island Power Authority to study power plant modernization, he said.

[mr_genius]

Uh oh

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ph...1645453159.jpg/

 

Iran better be careful or they'll lose the support of liberal democrats in the United States. I mean burning an American flag or picture of GW Bush is fine.. but a picture of Obama?!

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Uh oh

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ph...1645453159.jpg/

 

Iran better be careful or they'll lose the support of liberal democrats in the United States. I mean burning an American flag or picture of GW Bush is fine.. but a picture of Obama?!

First, the idea that Democrats are somehow big fans of Iran is ridiculous. In fact, the GOP and Democrats have taken pretty much the same tack on the issue of relations with Iran.

 

Second, I think its pretty clear that Obama's Iran policy will be very similar (though perhaps not identical) to Bush's. More communication and bigger carrots maybe, but overall, not much different.

 

[mr_genius]

the idea that Democrats are somehow big fans of Iran is ridiculous.

 

i said liberal democrats (think dailykos types). not realizing that many of them did blindly support Iran over the evil Bush regime is ridiculous.

[Texsox]

i said liberal democrats (think dailykos types). not realizing that many of them did blindly support Iran over the evil Bush regime is ridiculous.

 

How many people do you think that is?

[mr_genius]

How many people do you think that is?

 

i don't know. maybe 5 million total in the country (maybe more). probably around the same number of far right crazies.

 

how many do you think there is?

[Texsox]

i don't know. maybe 5 million total in the country (maybe more). probably around the same number of far right crazies.

 

how many do you think there is?

 

I think far less than 5,000,000 blindly support Iran. But out of 300,000,000 people, I guess it is possible, but I doubt it. There are about 72,000,000 Dems in the US. If 8% of the party blindly supported Iran, at least a few people here would share that view. I honestly have never met anyone that blindly supported Iran. So my guess would be more along the lines of less than 1%, which would be less than 700,000.

[mr_genius]

I think far less than 5,000,000 blindly support Iran. But out of 300,000,000 people, I guess it is possible, but I doubt it. There are about 72,000,000 Dems in the US. If 8% of the party blindly supported Iran, at least a few people here would share that view. I honestly have never met anyone that blindly supported Iran. So my guess would be more along the lines of less than 1%, which would be less than 700,000.

 

8% of the Democrat party sounds about right. I have met plenty of people that totally supported Iran and thought GW Bush was worse than Hitler. I'm staying with 5 million.

[Texsox]

8% of the Democrat party sounds about right. I have met plenty of people that totally supported Iran and thought GW Bush was worse than Hitler. I'm staying with 5 million.

 

Well you certainly hang out with some ignorant creeps. I'd get a new set of friends.

[mr_genius]

Well you certainly hang out with some ignorant creeps. I'd get a new set of friends.

 

It's amazing how the tune changes from 'reasonable dissent' into 'ignorant creeps' once a picture of Obama has been burned.

 

But this was the entire point of my original post. Thanks for the backup, Texsox.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

It's amazing how the tune changes from 'reasonable dissent' into 'ignorant creeps' once a picture of Obama has been burned.

 

But this was the entire point of my original post. Thanks for the backup, Texsox.

 

 

Anyone who blindly supports a country is ignorant. So I find it possible that someone could support Iran and not do it out of ignorance but from understanding the region and the problems.

 

You seem to equate reasonable dissent with blind support. Those are two different things in my mind. I believe it is possible to support Iran based not on blind, ignorant support. You seem to think any support of Iran must be blind.

[mr_genius]

Anyone who blindly supports a country is ignorant.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, there are lots of ignorant people.

[mr_genius]

Anyone who blindly supports a country is ignorant. So I find it possible that someone could support Iran and not do it out of ignorance but from understanding the region and the problems.

 

You seem to equate reasonable dissent with blind support. Those are two different things in my mind. I believe it is possible to support Iran based not on blind, ignorant support. You seem to think any support of Iran must be blind.

 

The truth is I did see blind support for Iran, there was nothing Iran could do wrong as long as the evil Bush regime was opposed to Iranian policies.

 

State sponsered calls for the destruction of Israel? Fine.

State sponsored holocaust denial convention? Fine

State sponsored anti-Semitic cartoon festival? Fine

Supply arms to terrorists killing US soldiers? Fine

Burn picture of Obama? BAD!

 

See, the issue of blind support was that of my enemies enemy is my friend. Any entity that opposed the 'Evil Bush Regime' was blindly supported, as it MUST be better than ' Bush Evil Satan Regime'. These people whom blindly supported Iran were indeed very ignorant.

 

edit: Also, if you are going to change your replies on the fly like that please use an edit tag.

Edited January 13, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I smell hyperbole.

[mr_genius]

I smell hyperbole.

 

Unfortunately, it's not even much of an exaggeration (as a hyperbole would suggest). Literally, any entity that was against GW Bush was blindly supported by certain liberal groups. It was fairly sad.

[lostfan]

Unfortunately, it's not even much of an exaggeration (as a hyperbole would suggest). Literally, any entity that was against GW Bush was blindly supported by certain liberal groups. It was fairly sad.

But who? Maybe I just tune certain types out and don't notice them.

[Texsox]

The truth is I did see blind support for Iran, there was nothing Iran could do wrong as long as the evil Bush regime was opposed to Iranian policies.

 

State sponsered calls for the destruction of Israel? Fine.

State sponsored holocaust denial convention? Fine

State sponsored anti-Semitic cartoon festival? Fine

Supply arms to terrorists killing US soldiers? Fine

Burn picture of Obama? BAD!

 

See, the issue of blind support was that of my enemies enemy is my friend. Any entity that opposed the 'Evil Bush Regime' was blindly supported, as it MUST be better than ' Bush Evil Satan Regime'. These people whom blindly supported Iran were indeed very ignorant.

 

edit: Also, if you are going to change your replies on the fly like that please use an edit tag.

 

I am certain there were some people who found it fine. I do not know of anyone, they seem to always be people you know. I guess we have different circles of friends. This area is about 85% Dem by most elections, and I know no one. You are a conservative GOP follower, and you know many.

 

That is funny.

[mr_genius]

But who? Maybe I just tune certain types out and don't notice them.

 

google Bush is Hitler. Dude theres millions of examples. Did you attend any anti-war protests? I did, as I objected to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of idiot "Bush=Hitler" signs and other examples of mass stupidity on display. There are literally millions of people like this and they really aren't that hard to find.

 

We even have some that post here, but I'm not goign to name names as it's just going to start a flame war.

[mr_genius]

I am certain there were some people who found it fine. I do not know of anyone, they seem to always be people you know. I guess we have different circles of friends. This area is about 85% Dem by most elections, and I know no one. You are a conservative GOP follower, and you know many.

 

That is funny.

 

Oh, you probably know some. But I am very open minded and listen to all sides, you are from a closed minded state like Texas and this may be a foreign concept to you. Remember, the 'Evil Bush Regime' is from Texas.

Edited January 13, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

google Bush is Hitler. Dude theres millions of examples. Did you attend any anti-war protests? I did, as I objected to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of idiot "Bush=Hitler" signs and other examples of mass stupidity on display. There are literally millions of people like this and they really aren't that hard to find.

 

We even have some that post here, but I'm not goign to name names as it's just going to start a flame war.

People hating the president and generally being ignorant, of course I've seen that, that's something other than what you're saying though. I literally have never met nor heard of a single person in my life who blindly supports Iran over America or outwardly hopes our troops fail. Maybe they get carried away with certain things they say, maybe they don't think Iran is as evil as the US does, maybe this opinion is justprojected onto them during heated arguments by people who disagree with them, I don't know, but this was not their stance. I'm not saying these people don't exist, I'm saying I don't know who they are.

[mr_genius]

People hating the president and generally being ignorant, of course I've seen that, that's something other than what you're saying though. I literally have never met nor heard of a single person in my life who blindly supports Iran over America or outwardly hopes our troops fail. Maybe they get carried away with certain things they say, maybe they don't think Iran is as evil as the US does, maybe this opinion is justprojected onto them during heated arguments by people who disagree with them, I don't know, but this was not their stance. I'm not saying these people don't exist, I'm saying I don't know who they are.

 

fair enough.

 

 

[Texsox]

Unfortunately, it's not even much of an exaggeration (as a hyperbole would suggest). Literally, any entity that was against GW Bush was blindly supported by certain liberal groups. It was fairly sad.

 

Really? So the Conservatives who lost faith in him and were agianst him, then supported certain liberal groups? Which ones? At one point his approval ratings were around 25%, does that mean people went from supporting Bush to blindly supporting liberal groups? Seems like you would jave to then blindly support Bush to stay on the right side.

[Texsox]

Oh, I'm sure you do know some. But I am very open minded and listen to all sides, you are from a closed minded state like Texas and this may be a foreign concept to you. Remember, the 'Evil Bush Regime' is from Texas.

 

I don't know anyone who believed Bush was worse than Hitler or who blindly supported Iran. Where do you meet people like that?

[mr_genius]

Really? So the Conservatives who lost faith in him and were agianst him, then supported certain liberal groups? Which ones? At one point his approval ratings were around 25%, does that mean people went from supporting Bush to blindly supporting liberal groups? Seems like you would jave to then blindly support Bush to stay on the right side.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

I don't know anyone who believed Bush was worse than Hitler or who blindly supported Iran. Where do you meet people like that?

 

Soxtalk fillibuster

 

You do know people like this you are just bulls***ting as usual.