Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kent Conrad is going to be added as a co-sponsor of the Anti-Lynching bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:48 PM
Original message
Kent Conrad is going to be added as a co-sponsor of the Anti-Lynching bill
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:49 PM by geek tragedy
My contact inside Conrad's office has confirmed this. Others posting at Kos have similar reports.

Now, can those people who smeared Senator Conrad as "pro-lynching" and a "racist" because "North Dakotans don't care about black folk" kindly go get stuffed? If there's one thing than angers me more than Republicans, it's stupid-ass liberals who try to tear other liberals down over nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. GOOD!
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:50 PM by Beetwasher
Now we can club the Repubs to death with their refusal to sign on! What took him so long?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. CAFTA, base closures, federal funding for projects in-state
to name a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Same thing as the other senators who cosponsored the bill in february.
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:59 PM by Mass
I do not doubt he supports the bill, but he probably got surprised by the absence of rollcall vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Okay, you're right. Kent Conrad is really just a lying, evil racist DINO
who doesn't care about black people because North Dakota is mostly white, and he probably hates Native Americans too.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. WHat did I say?
I imagine he expected to vote for the bill in a rollcall vote and did not bother to sponsor the bill.

Seems a lot of people got surprised by the vote that was fixed at the last minute.

I am not implying he was against the bill. He is the name who does not fit in the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm not sure what people want. Sorry if I went overboard there.
It's just that there's a whole lot of crap going on with N. Dak and federal funding right now.

The Rethug governor (actually a nice guy, but kind of an empty suit) is being HEAVILY courted by Karl Rove and the RNCC to run against Conrad. He spent the night at the WH earlier this week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. A Little Slow On The Draw No?
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:54 PM by DistressedAmerican
IF EVEN TRUE!

I'll Believe It When I See It!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No.
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:57 PM by geek tragedy
It was an oversight on someone's part for his name to not have been on the list earlier, but that oversight has been corrected (in part due to the phone calls they got).

Senators depend on their staffs as their eyes and ears to a great extent.

Jesus, what did Kent Conrad ever to do you? I would think that a progressive Dem from a deep Red state would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC