Tuesday, 09 September 2008
JOE BIDEN AND TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS
I do not mean this blog entry as an argument for or against abortions.
I mean it only to show the hypocrisy level of Joe Biden in making claims about
his abortion record.
Read this from www.lifenews.com:
(LifeNews.com) -- Joe Biden repeatedly made the claim in a Sunday
interview on the NBC political show "Meet the Press" that he opposes taxpayer
funding of abortions. However, a look at his voting record over the years
reveals numerous instances where Barack Obama's pro-abortion running mate did
"I don't support public, public
funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have
to accept a different view," he said on the program.
recently as February, Biden voted
against an amendment that would
permanently prevent abortion funding at Indian health care service facilities.
The amendment from Sen. David Vitter would codify a longstanding policy against
funding of abortions with federal Indian Health Service (IHS)
The language of the Vitter amendment follows the Hyde
amendment, which prohibits direct funding of abortion under Medicaid except in
very rare cases when the mother is a victim of rape or incest or when the
pregnancy threatens her life.
voted 52 to 42 for the Vitter amendment and several Democrats joined Republicans
in passing it, though Biden was not one of them.
In April 2005,
Biden voted against the Mexico City Policy, which President Bush instituted to
prohibit taxpayer funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas.
He also voted for international abortion funding in July 2003.
In a May 2003
vote, Biden also voted for a pro-abortion amendment to repeal the law that
prohibits performance of abortions of military base hospitals, all of which are
defeated the amendment by just three votes and the margin would have been larger
had Biden voted against it.
for taxpayer-funded abortions at military base medical centers in June 2002
along with votes in May 1999 and June 2000.
according to voting records from the National Right to Life Committee, Biden
hasn't voted against taxpayer funding of abortions since a July 1999 vote
prohibiting the funding of abortions in the health plans of federal
Let's face it. It isn't easy to be a liberal Democrat and a practicing
Catholic. That is because the liberal Democrat position favors abortion
under almost all circumstances, while Catholicism teaches that there is a human
life at the point of conception and therefore an abortion is infanticide.
Because of this you get ridiculous contortions of
"logic" from people like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and others,
such as "I personally am against abortion but I cannot impose my beliefs on
others". This literally translates into "I believe you're killing an
innocent child but, hey, it's your call"
Using that same logic Mr., Biden would be unable to vote for a law
making it illegal for mothers to kill their 5 year olds.
Why? Because if you truly believe life begins at conception, a 5 year
old is no more or less alive than a 5 week old in the womb. And
you "...cannot impose my beliefs on others". See the problem?
Look, I don't envy Joe Biden this predicament. I don't know how I would
handle it if I were him. But I do know that when he makes claims about his
voting record on Meet The Press, those claims ought to bear at least some
resemblance to how he actually voted.
THE TODAY SHOW: A LESSON IN BIASED REPORTING
I watched the Today show this morning. On it, there was a report about
Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and the so-called "bridge to nowhere" (the bridge
in Ketchikan, Alaska that wound up not being constructed).
First off, let's acknowledge that the bridge is certainly a legitimate
issue. In its final form it would have cost something like $200,000,000 -
$400,000,000 and provided minimal value for that money.
The Today show pointed out that Sarah Palin supported the bridge.
A video was shown from a year or two ago in which she said as
Today then showed a very recent video of Barack Obama ridiculing Ms.
Palin for claiming to be against the bridge. Mr. Obama assured
his audience that "you can't just make stuff up" and ended with a sure
applause-getter, "the American people (i.e. you guys in the audience) are not
Afterwards, Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw discussed the meaning and import of this issue without
any additional facts being brought to viewers' attention.
So what's my problem?
My problem is that the Today show lied by omission. It left out entire
parts of this issue that would have had a material affect on viewers'
Specifically, the Today show left out these facts:
1) Although Sarah Palin was initially supportive of the bridge she
changed her position and was then against it. And before you assume her
change was a convenient flip-flop concocted for her Vice Presidential run, be
advised that she changed her position long before John McCain
selected her, probably long before he even considered
The Palin people claim that her initial support was for a far more modest
bridge. Then, when the project got to D.C. and blossomed into a $200 -
$400 million spectacular, she came out against it.
Is that true? I don't know. It is certainly plausible, which
argues for her. And it is certainly politically convenient, which argues
against her. But, regardless, there is no doubt that she changed
positions and did so long before anyone was offering her a spot on the McCain
2) Barack Obama, unlike Ms. Palin, did not change his position on the
"bridge to nowhere". When it came up for a vote in the U.S. Senate,
Mr. Obama voted for it. Then, when it was challenged by Senator
Tom Coburn (a Republican, it should be noted) and came up for a second vote in
the senate? Barack Obama voted for it again.
At the time Barack Obama was voting for the bridge, Sarah Palin was already
on record as being against it.
This means that, when Mr. Obama sneers out comments that "you can't
just make stuff up....the American people are not stupid", he is not talking
about Sarah Palin. He is talking about himself.
3) And Joe Biden? He voted for the "bridge to nowhere" both
times as well. Just like his running mate Barack Obama.
If you know these facts, does it not change how you view Ms. Palin and Mr.
Obama when it comes to the "bridge to nowhere"?
Well, the millions of people who look to the Today show for news and
information did not hear one word of it. Their opinion is being formulated
without this information. It is therefore being formulated from half
Simply stated, the Today show took people who wanted to
become informed and instead made them ignorant. And it did so in a way
that would clearly have made them more sympathetic to Barack Obama and less
to the McCain-Palin ticket.
That is Today's lesson in how media bias works. Do you like it?
RACISM AND STUPIDITY
What do you call a student - a student heavily involved with the Republican
party, it should be noted - who thinks it's funny to insult Barack Obama's "big
For me, words like "racist" and "stupid" immediately come to mind.
Here, courtesy of an excerpt from the
Associated Press article, is what I am referring to:
Student GOP leader resigns over Obama
ALLENTOWN, Pa. The leader of a statewide group
of college Republicans has
been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee
Barack Obama on the
Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director
of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July
that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the
shores of Miami (and probably
LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah"
and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a
racial slur, then we're ALL
The College Republicans asked LaDuca to resign
after his remarks were publicized by the Pennsylvania Progressive, a blog written by a
Democratic committeeman from Berks County. The group announced LaDuca's
resignation on its Web site Friday.
"The comments were completely uncalled for and
very offensive," said Anthony Pugliese, 22, a senior at West Chester
University and chairman of the College Republicans, an umbrella group with
more than 50 chapters statewide. "The P-A College Republicans do not accept or
tolerate racism in any way."
There are some things that intelligent or even semi-intelligent people know
like the back of their hand. They know that:
-If you talk about how big a Jew's nose is, you're engaging in
a classic anti-Semitic attack.
-If you speculate on how many times an Irish guy gets drunk you're engaging
in a classic anti-Irish attack.
-And if you make a dumb, unfunny joke about the size of a Black man's lips
you are engaging in a classic anti-Black attack -- an attack made even worse
by also conspicuously invoking the word "man" which, itself, is a word used to
stereotype Black people.
This was a classicly anti-Black statement. Period.
Maybe Mr. LaDuca didn't mean it to come out that way. I don't know one
way or the other. But I do know that the minute he put his name to that
offensive filth he disqualified himself as a spokesman for any legitimate
Goodbye and good riddance.
SOME FACT CHECKS FROM FACTCHECK
I've already blogged about most of this. But, in case you missed any,
here is a quick compendium of fraudulent attacks on Sarah Palin, courtesy
Weve been flooded for the past few days with
queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims
about McCains running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely
false, or misleading.
- Palin did not cut funding for special needs
education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didnt cut it at all. In fact, she
tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
- She did not demand that books be banned from
the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not
even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a What if?
question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palins
- She was never a member of the Alaskan
Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish
to secede from the United States. Shes been registered as a Republican
since May 1982.
- Palin never endorsed or supported Pat
Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a courtesy when
he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of
the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
- Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism
in Alaskas schools. She has said that students should be allowed to debate
both sides of the evolution question, but she also said creationism
doesnt have to be part of the curriculum.
The Wall Street Journal reported
that the Democratic party has dispatched an "army" of 30 slime
merchants to Alaska with the sole purpose of digging up any and everything they
can on Ms. Palin. Here is the beginning of the article:
The Hunt for Sarah
City slickers invade Wasilla
Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has
upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John
McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of
Mr. Obama's eight-point lead last month.
It's no surprise, then, that
Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and
opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's
hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the
first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected
her on August 29.
They've been there for over a week now. Is this the best they can come
Are these people in trouble or what?
AN HONEST LOOK AT OBAMA'S 'BIPARTISANSHIP'
The Lugar-Obama legislation. Barack Obama keeps making reference to it
as if he was some kind of bipartisan prime mover and shaker who crossed the
political aisle and shepherded major legislation through the United States
But did he? Or is this another paper-thin "accomplishment" that Mr.
Obama has been able to wildly exaggerate because the mainstream media have given
him a free pass on it?
Well, let's see. Here is an article from Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com which takes an
honest look at Mr. Obama's involvement:
It would be nice
if the press would bring just one reporter back from Alaska to look into Senator
Obama's legislative claims. If you'll bear with me, I think a few details on
"signature" Lugar-Obama legislation bear fleshing out because The One is being
an out-and-out fabulist.
In one of Obama's television ads, and
in countless press interviews, Obama claims that he "reach[ed] out to Senator
Lugar...to help lock down loose nuclear weapons." Not true.
The Soviet-Nuclear Threat Reduction Act passed in
1991(!) and was signed by George H.W. Bush. It was renamed the Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction ACT in 1993. It was meant to secure Russia's
nuclear stockpile and to help pay for eliminating Russia's excess strategic
weapons. By the time that Obama entered the Senate the legislation had mostly
accomplished its main goals (securing Soviet nuclear warheads and destroying
delivery systems). In fact, Russia had long since begun building new nuclear
weapons and delivery systems.
What Obama's legislation did was extend
and amend this already wildly successful legislation. But the real substance
of amendment had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Just the opposite. The
new authorities in Obama's amendment dealt only with conventional
Here are his amendments to section 11 of the State
Department Authorization Act of 2006:
(a) In General- The Secretary of
State is authorized to secure, remove, or eliminate stocks of man-portable
air defense systems (MANPADS), small arms and light weapons, stockpiled
munitions, abandoned ordnance, and other conventional weapons, including
tactical missile systems (hereafter in this section referred to as 'MANPADS
and other conventional weapons'), as well as related equipment and
facilities, located outside the United States that are determined by the
Secretary to pose a proliferation threat. And Section 12:
a) Statement of Policy - Congress
declares that it should be the policy of the United States to hold foreign
governments accountable for knowingly transferring MANPADS to state-sponsors
of terrorism or terrorist organizations. This amendment didn't start any work on securing
nukes, nor did it finish it. It doesn't even mention nuclear weapons. In fact,
you could argue that it diverted us from securing "loose nukes."
And look at that Section 12 statement of policy, again. It's
vintage Obamian bunny rabbits and rainbows. Keep in mind that the largest
manufacturer of MANPADS is Russia. And the country that most often transfers
them to terrorists is Iran. Just how did Obama want to "hold them
accountable"? Tickle them to death? Write them a very nasty letter? He doesn't
This legislation that Obama claims as his own was couched
in the annual State Department Authorization...he wasn't even a cosponsor of
that larger bill. His amendment had been folded into the larger authorization
much earlier (yes, by unanimous consent).
But we can actually
take this one step further. After the bill's passage, the US went on a
worldwide hunt to buy up MANPADs. Unable to get the MANPADs out of the hands
of real enemies, we twisted the arms of allies to give up air defense
stockpiles we deemed superfluous. One of the easiest targets? Georgia. We
browbeat Georgia into giving us its MANPAD stockpile, which was their only air
defense. We all know the rest of the story. Georgia was smart enough to go buy
a few new MANPADs from places like Poland (against our loud protestations),
but when Russia invaded last month they didn't have nearly enough to protect
themselves against Russia's onslaught.
Obama shouldn't be allowed to
get away with this.
It's too bad the big boys at the
Washington Post can't be bothered to look seriously into Obama's tall tales of
bipartisan accomplishment. You'd think this story might be up their alley.
Unfortuntately, they're busy at the moment checking up on Governor Palin's per
diem as governor of Alaska.
Bottom line: Barack Obama's claims about the Lugar-Obama legislation
are demonstrably untrue. And, as I've pointed out already, the only reason
he has gotten away with these untruths is that our "neutral" media look the
other way and allow him to.
Hello. Calling mainstream media? Anyone home?
DEBUNKING STILL ANOTHER ATTACK ON PALIN
This is getting ridiculous.
Now it's the Washington Post.
Today's edition has a
page 1 story on Sarah Palin and her expense account. Here is the first
part of that story. Please read the headline - think about what it
communicates to you - and then read the rest, paying special attention to the
parts I've put in bold print.
Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at
Taxpayers Also Funded
Washington Post Staff Writers
Palin and John McCain campaign at the John Knox Village retirement community in
Lee's Summit, Mo. (By Dave Kaup -- Getty
Tuesday, September 9,
2008; Page A01
ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov.
Palin has billed
taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in
office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental
expenses while traveling on state business.
Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and
received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted
because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis
of her travel documents by The Washington Post.
The governor's daughters and husband charged the
state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house
in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents
Gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon Leighow
said Monday that Palin's expenses are not unusual and that, under state policy,
the first family could have claimed per diem expenses for each child taken on
official business but has not done so.
Before she became the Republican Party's vice
presidential nominee, Palin was little known outside Alaska. Now, with the
campaign emphasizing her executive experience, her record as mayor of Wasilla,
as a state oil-and-gas commissioner and as governor is receiving intense
During her speech at the Republican National
Convention last week, Palin cast herself
as a crusader for fiscal rectitude as Alaska's governor. She noted that she sold
a state-owned plane used by the former governor. "While I was at it, I got rid
of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens
should have to pay for," she said to loud applause.
Speaking from Palin's Anchorage office,
Leighow said Palin dealt with the plane and also trimmed other expenses,
including forgoing a chef in the governor's mansion because she preferred to
cook for her family. The first family's travel is an expected part of the job,
"As a matter of protocol, the governor and the
first family are expected to attend community events across the state," she
said. "It's absolutely reasonable that the first family participates in
The state finance director, Kim Garnero, said
Alaska law exempts the governor's office from elaborate travel regulations. Said
Leighow: "The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."
The popular governor collected the per diem
allowance from April 22, four days after the birth of her fifth child, until
June 3, when she flew to Juneau for two days. Palin moved her family to the
capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla
and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts
most of her business, aides have said.
Palin rarely sought reimbursement for
meals while staying in Anchorage or Wasilla, the reports show.
Unbelievable, isn't it? That headline clearly suggests Ms. Palin is a
hog who stuffs her pockets with taxpayer money by padding her expense
account. But in reality, not only is she doing no such thing but Ms. Palin
takes substantially less in expense account money than she is entitled
Here, fascinatingly, is the same article, but with another headline . This one is
from the Fort Wayne, Indiana Journal-Gazette, which evidently subscribes
to the Washington Post news service. Read it and shake your head in amazement:
Published: September 9, 2008
Alaska law backs Palin expenses
Let me emphasize, again, that this headline is for THE
EXACT SAME STORY. Notice any difference?
There will be books written about the intensity -- and
dishonesty and viciousness -- of attacks on Sarah Palin in this campaign.
I don't know who will be writing them, but they'll be written. I would
not at all be surprised if one or more are already in
DID BARACK OBAMA CALL SARAH PALIN A PIG?
Do you think that title is dishonest or misleading? Well, don't.
Here is an article from the Boston Globe which shows you what I mean.
The bold print is mine:
Swift blasts Obama over 'pig' comment
Jane Swift went quickly to work this evening as a
leader of a brand new "truth squad" defending GOP vice presidential nominee
Sarah Palin, excoriating Barack Obama for a comment he made while campaigning in
Obama told voters that they shouldn't
believe John McCain and Palin's talk about reforming Washington. "You can put
lipstick on a pig," Obama said. "It's still a pig."
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper
called change. It's still gonna stink," Obama added. "We've had enough of the
same old thing."
Republicans took offense, saying that was
a personal attack on Palin, who during the GOP convention speech last week,
asked delegates if they knew the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
Pointing to her mouth, she exclaimed, "Lipstick."
Swift told reporters on a conference call that
Obama's comment was "disgraceful" and that "he owes Governor Palin an
Challenged about how she could be sure
that Obama was referring to Palin, Swift replied, "She's the only one of the
four presidential or vice presidential candidates who wears
Swift also said Obama's remark was different than
McCain comparing Mitt Romney to a pig during their free-for-all before the New
Hampshire primary. "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get
dirty -- and the pig likes it," McCain said then.
Swift said Obama's
comment was gender-specific.
The Obama campaign, however, pointed out that
McCain used the same phrase while criticizing Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan,
saying it was the same as the one she pushed as first lady. "I think they put
some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her
The former Massachusetts governor said it's only
the latest in a series of offensive comments from Obama and his supporters. She
said that after going up against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, Obama's
campaign "would have figured out how to respectfully" debate a female
"This is just the same old low road," Swift
Republicans also blasted Obama for
describing Palin in Michigan on Monday as a "mother, governor, moose
The McCain campaign issued a statement today from Walter
Morse, co-chairman of New Hampshire Sportsmen for McCain: "What Barack Obama
dismisses as a 'moose shooter' we in New Hampshire call a 'sportsman' or a
'moose hunter.' Senator Obama has demonstrated once again that he doesn't
understand rural America -- and after suggesting that many of us 'cling' to
religion and guns, he also doesn't seem interested in learning. Although the
sportsmen's community knows Barack Obama is no friend, this comment reinforces
the critical need for hunters and anglers to mobilize behind our allies John
McCain and Sarah Palin."
Could this be getting worse?
Every day that Barack Obama goes after Sarah Palin instead of John McCain is
a day that John McCain wins.
And every day that Barack Obama finds a new way to personally insult Sarah
Palin is a day that Barack Obama loses.
That looks like the same direction to me.
JOE BIDEN AND THE ASBESTOS CLASS ACTION SUIT
I wonder if media can take a little time out from its nonstop attempts to crucify Sarah
Palin. Maybe they could invest that time in looking at Joe Biden's connections
to the asbestos industry.
Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com provides the
details, and - unlike most of what we've been treated to about Ms. Palin - they
are actually fact-based.
Here, see for yourself:
What a shock.
Mr. Biden killed legislation that would have hurt
his top donors, relatives and friends who all just happen to be involved in
highly lucrative asbestos class action lawsuits.
From the legal journal, the AM Law Daily:
Sen. Joe Biden appears with son Beau, who was a
partner in a law firm that specializes in asbestos class action lawsuits.
ELECTION 2008: The Legal Ties That Bind the
Posted by Rachel Breitman
Although he hasnt practiced law in over 30
years, newly-minted vice presidential nominee Joe Biden remains a favorite son
in the legal community.
Like all potential VPs, Joe Biden was thoroughly
vetted by the Obama campaign, his relationships to lobbyists carefully
analyzed. The Am Law Daily did some of its own vetting of the new nominee and
the extensive legal ties that bind the Bidens. Older son Beau, 39, followed
his father into politics, and is currently the attorney general of Delaware.
Younger son Hunter is a partner at Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a Washington
law and lobbying firm. Hunter stepped down from the firms lobbying affiliate
in 2006 in keeping with a Senate ethics bill requirement. His firm was
retained as legal counsel to the Biden campaign and paid more than $57,000
The senator has longstanding
relationships with law firms that donated to his congressional races and his
two bids for the White House. Top contributors for his recent run were the Law
Office of Peter Angelos
in Baltimore, Maryland, which donated $156,250; SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Illinois contributed $146,600; Pachulski
Stang Ziehl & Jones
in Wilmington gave $145,625; and Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington gave $127,979.
Many of those firms have handled
asbestos and bankruptcy cases, issues Biden has weighed in on from his seat on
the judicial committee. Biden was a critic of the failed Fairness in Asbestos
Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act of 2005, which would have trimmed returns on
future litigation and hurt firms like SimmonsCooper, a billion dollar asbestos
practice which used son Beaus former law firm, Bifferato, Gentilotti, Biden
& Balick (now Bifferato
local counsel to file asbestos suits in Delaware. Angelos firm also
represents asbestos clients, and Stargatt & Taylor has handled mass tort
asbestos cases, representing court-appointed advocates for unknown future
claimantsindividuals representing people who have been exposed to asbestos
but have not yet become sick.
On the other side of the asbestos
issue, Pachulski Stang, a bankruptcy boutique, counsels companies that filed
for Chapter 11 after being hit with a multitude of asbestos
And here is a little more information on exactly
what Mr. Biden did for all of that money, from, of all places, USA
Biden move had intersection of
DENVER Sen. Joe Biden worked to defeat a
bipartisan bill designed to curb asbestos lawsuits at a time his sons law
firm was filing them in Delaware and a former aide was lobbying against the
measure, according to public records and interviews.
Biden, a longtime ally of trial
lawyers who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed legislation that
would have replaced thousands of lawsuits with a trust fund for asbestos
victims. He proposed a series of amendments in 2003 and 2005 that backers of
the bill viewed as poison pills designed to kill the bill, said Lawrence
Fineran, a lobbyist who supported the measure.
Supporters including chief sponsors Sens.
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. said the measure would end
abusive litigation that had bankrupted dozens of companies. Critics, including
Biden, said it would leave some victims without compensation. In
February 2006, Biden joined a majority of Democrats, including Sen. Barack
Obama, in voting to defeat the bill
The Delaware Democrat had ties to opponents of
the asbestos measure at the time he worked against the bill, a USA TODAY
His older son, Beau Biden, was a
partner in a Wilmington law firm that was filing asbestos lawsuits and seeking
to develop a specialty in that area, according to firm partner Connor
His former Senate aide, John T.
Dorsey, was a lobbyist representing three asbestos-related clients from 2003
to 2005 who opposed the bill. In May, Dorsey became treasurer of
Bidens political action committee, records show
Employees at three law firms that
specialize in asbestos litigation are among Bidens top 10 all-time
contributors, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Employees at those law firms have given him $411,000 since 1989, according to
Asked if Biden should have
disclosed his son was working on asbestos cases, Wade said: No. Sen. Biden
was a well-known opponent of the asbestos bill, and Beau Biden was a prominent
attorney who was working on behalf of mesothelioma victims.
And a look at the numbers from the Center For
Responsive Politics, Open Secrets site:
(Please note that MBNAs ranking also indicates a
similarly blatant conflict of interest for Mr. Biden that we have discussed
Of course Mr. Obama scored one of his (two)
triumphs of his community organizing career when he asked the managers of a
housing development to remove asbestos from their buildings. Which they agreed
But you would think that Mr. Biden outrageous
conflicts of interest would attract some of our mainstream journalists to
investigate the story.
Though that might distract them from their 24/7
Sarah Palin witch hunt
Is it just me, or does this appear to be worth a look by mainstream
media? Then again Mr. Biden does have a D instead of an R after his name,
doesn't he? So I guess that largely ends the issue.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them