Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Pomeroy Irate with Conrad??

ND NEWS

According to the reasoning behind this e-mail from Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) to North Dakota Democrats, Earl should be absolutely irate with Kent Conrad (D-ND).

The Forum- Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., took action within days of The Forum's May 2 report that the White House has been courting Jim Poolman to run against him.

In an e-mailed fundraising message to Democrats, Pomeroy wrote: "As you can see from the article below which appeared in The Forum, Washington partisans once again have their sights set on North Dakota's House seat." The letter includes the May 2 edition of Political Notebook.

Pomeroy asks supporters to "help offset the money the White House and other national Republicans are certain to flood our state with in an effort to take me out" and send him $250, $100, $50, "even $10 - whatever your family budget allows."


And so why should Earl by irate with Gaylord Kent???


TakingBackND- So far this year 96% of the money raised by Kent Conrad has come from outside interests and PACs. I'm sure we in North Dakota are getting the attention we "pay" for.


According to Earl's own logic and reasoning he should be irate with Kent Conrad. After all it is Conrad who already has accepted the "flood" of money from "Washington partisans." Conrad's big money boys from Washington account for a whopping 98% of the donations of $200 and over.

I won't be holding my breath for the Earl Pomeroy outburst over the "flood" of money that Conrad has already accepted from "Washington partisans" the way he blew up Jim Poolman for the money he feels Poolman is "certain" to accept some time in the future.

Comments

Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

I’ve said before on this blog that state campaigns should be limited to accepting money from in-state donors.  Though both partys do it, we don’t need a bunch of rich out-of-staters buying North Dakota’s seats in congress.

But as far as Conrad is concerned, I think we should repeal the 17th amendment and have the state’s governor appoint Senators to congress.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 17, 2005 at 10:05 am
Avatar for Joshua

"I’ve said before on this blog that state campaigns should be limited to accepting money from in-state donors.”

I second that motion.

Joshua on May 17, 2005 at 11:06 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Wow, guys. Next you are going to be saying that candidates have to be residents of ND, you right wing radicals you. Here in PA last year we had much the same situation. Arlen Sphincter still got to keep his cushy,high paying gig. Most of his money came from out of state.

2Hotel9 on May 17, 2005 at 02:06 pm
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Arlen Sphincter?  Gawd, I love it!

Btw, I am not a fan of repealing #17, but I heartily agree about the in-state money.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on May 18, 2005 at 04:05 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.