Eliot Spitzer working hard!

[Ithaca 37]

I keep telling you guys to get ready to vote for Eliot!

"Spitzer: Buffett a Witness in AIG Probe
Sunday April 10, 8:09 pm ET
Spitzer Says Warren Buffett Is Merely a Witness Who Could 'Shed Light' on AIG Transactions


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett is merely a witness who could "shed light" on transactions involving the former chief executive of insurer American International Group Inc., which is now at the center of federal and state probes, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said Sunday.

Buffett, who heads Berkshire Hathaway, will meet Monday in New York with regulators as part of an investigation by Spitzer and the Securities and Exchange Commission into allegations of accounting improprieties at AIG involving a unit of Buffett's company.

The company's former CEO, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, was forced out in mid-March as those allegations mounted. Greenberg is scheduled to speak with regulators on Tuesday.

"We believe (Buffet) can shed light on a series of transactions that ... Hank Greenberg participated in," Spitzer said in an interview with ABC's "This Week" television program.

Spitzer stressed that Buffet was "not a subject or a target of our investigation," but said, "There are some ambiguities that will be hopefully addressed (Monday) in our discussion with Mr. Buffett."

"He is a witness in our view, and the focus of this investigation is AIG and the much broader reach of the offshore entities that AIG has created that we believe were, in many respects, fraudulent," Spitzer said.

Buffett was subpoenaed in January and has said he would cooperate.

Berkshire Hathaway did not return a call seeking comment Sunday.

The New York Times reported Friday that documents from a 2000 reinsurance transaction at the center of the probes had been doctored several months after the deal was struck. The newspaper cited unnamed executives with direct knowledge of the transaction, who said the deal was "repapered" by midlevel employees of General Re Corp., a unit of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway.

The Times said the modification was detected by attorneys Berkshire Hathaway hired to audit General Re in connection with an unrelated case.

In a recent television interview, Greenberg's attorney David Boies said AIG's accounting neither greatly influenced the market nor misled people.

"Well, obviously I disagree with that," Spitzer said Sunday. "The evidence is overwhelming that these were transactions created for the purpose of deceiving the market. We call that fraud. It is deceptive. It is wrong. It is illegal."

Still, Spitzer would not say an indictment was forthcoming.

"We have powerful evidence. We will proceed with it," he said. "It could be civil. It could be criminal."

Last month, AIG acknowledged that it had improperly recorded transactions with General Re that served to boost its reserves.

Reinsurance traditionally has been used to spread risk among insurers but, in some cases, it has been used for the questionable purpose of polishing a company's financial statements. If there is no risk transfer, the deal shouldn't be booked as insurance.

In the case under review, AIG purchased reinsurance from General Re in the fourth quarter of 2000 and first quarter of 2001. Investigators have said that AIG used the deals to pump up its reserves when markets were uneasy about the company's outstanding liabilities.

When asked whether he believed Buffet's impeccable reputation will remain intact, Spitzer replied, "I sure hope so ... Warren Buffett is an icon. He has succeeded the right way. He stands for smart, long-term investing, transparency, accountability -- all those things we value and support.""

 

[Hangar18]

Seeing as how Eliot Spitzer was the first state attorney general to waste taxpayer money by filing a frivolous lawsuit against gun manufacturers (he lost), I think my vote will going somewhere else.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Seeing as how Eliot Spitzer is the only Attorney General to have the guts to take on Wall Street, the mutual fund industry and the insurance industry, all of which affect your everyday life and investments, you'd be smart to do some research and watch the guy. What are all the other Attorney Generals and government regulatory agencies doing to earn their salary? How come Eliot is the one who keeps uncovering all the abuses? Do you really know the whole story about the gun manufacturer lawsuit. Research it and smarten up.

 

[Hangar18]

Do you really know the whole story about the gun manufacturer lawsuit. Research it and smarten up.

I know enough about it to know that it was nothing more than a frivolous attempt to bankrupt manufacturers selling a legal and highly regulated product. This reasoning was affirmed in the way of dismissals of approximately 30 similar lawsuits. If there is more, and according to you there is, please enlighten me. You opened the door, time to back it up.

 

[A-con]

Ithaca, you seem to be the local "Sptizer" expert, so if (and it's a big if ) I can forgive him his anti-gun owner views, convince me he's a good guy (other wise).
What are his Views on;
Immigration
Taxes (raise em or lower em)
States rights
Foreign policy
Animal rights ( a dog is a monkey is a boy )
Welfare
Gay rights (do they have more rights than I do ?)

 

[Ithaca 37]

You guys have been swallowing to much of the NRA paranoia BS. You should know, if you ever paid any attention, that certain gun manufacturers were supplying handguns to some of their distributers in suspiciously large quantities. Turns out they were being supplied by the distributors to people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. That's the history behind the lawsuit by Cuomo and Spitzer. I've supplied plenty of links in past topics about it.

Here's a little more: "More than a year ago, Spitzer began talks aimed at persuading gunmakers to adopt a code of conduct and change manufacturing and distributing practices to prevent the flow of weapons to criminals.

The code asked gun makers to install gun locks on all the firearms they sell, introduce within three years ``smart gun'' technology and prohibit the sales of its weapons at gun shows without a background check.

"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer. ....."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/26/null/main209438.shtml

As for Eliot's stand on other issues, he is now running for Gov. of NY and you can expect all his positions to become known throughout that campaign. Here's his website with some positions:

http://www.spitzer2006.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=globalDefault

Here's a little from the "About Eliot" page: In 2003, Eliot's office recovered $1.74 billion in penalties, fees and tobacco money -- a 34 percent increase over the record $1.3 billion collected in 2002. The New York Observer editorialized, "Mr. Spitzer probably has done more to stabilize the state's finances in the last few years than any other elected official. By refusing to look the other way as C.E.O.'s and financial institutions ripped off New Yorkers, he helped bail out the state during a difficult budget crisis. " .............

Now, Eliot is as more of a straight arrow than any other politician in the country. Follow what he's been doing and you'll start to figure that out.

While you're learning about him you might also ask yourself why the other Attorney Generals and government regulatory agencies don't tackle any of the tough issues that Eliot comes up with regularly. The abuses by the insurance industry and mutual fund industry have had an effect on anyone who buys any kind of insurance or invests in any shares of publicly held companies. Eliot is the only one to go after those industries and they caved in real fast. Start using your heads and watch Eliot.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Eliot Spitzer: The Two Billion Dollar Man


New York Observer
5/26/04

NEW YORK - Since his election as state attorney general in 1998, Eliot Spitzer has made a name for himself as the worst nightmare of every flimflam artist in high finance. He has taken the job of attorney general and converted it into a major office to fight corruption in the securities industry. Some have written off Mr. Spitzer’s crusades against crooked C.E.O.’s as so much political grandstanding as he prepares to run for Governor in 2006. However, the attorney general has not only demonstrated leadership in taking on rip-off artists in white collars, he has also been a friend to New York’s taxpayers: For a guy who makes $151,000 a year, he’s brought in well over $2 billion. Not a bad employee.

In 2003, the state Department of Law—which the Attorney General supervises—recovered a record $786 million in fines, fees and penalties against an assortment of shady operators. If you add money collected as part of the huge settlement with the tobacco industry, the department recovered $1.74 billion for the state and consumers in 2003. In 2002, Mr. Spitzer’s office recovered another $1.3 billion in penalties, fees and tobacco money.

Mr. Spitzer probably has done more to stabilize the state’s finances in the last few years than any other elected official. By refusing to look the other way as C.E.O.’s and financial institutions ripped off New Yorkers, he helped bail out the state during a difficult budget crisis. Let’s not forget, too, that he did the right thing, for all the right reasons. Sure, he is an ambitious politician. Then again, the only politicians who lack ambition are resting peacefully in local cemeteries.

It was Eliot Spitzer, more than any other law-enforcement official, who has exposed recent tawdry excesses of powerful executives and companies—such as his lawsuit against former Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso, who walked away from a not-for-profit enterprise with $139.5 million.
http://spitzer2006.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpNews&htmlId=880

 

[Ithaca 37]

Read the article I linked to below-----all the pages-----and then tell me what your Attorney General has been doing to protect the common man!

"But in the six years he’s been attorney general, Spitzer has transformed the office, “detonating,” as one observer put it, several of the country’s most significant industries in the process. He’s beaten the mutual-fund industry, the investment-banking industry, midwestern polluters, giant pharmaceutical companies; he’s had a run at gun manufacturers—his progressive agenda seems as broad as any governor’s. “Eliot,” says one admirer, “knows no limits.”


Spitzer has transformed his own political future. Perhaps, as some now say, a run for governor has always been in the cards for the ambitious Spitzer. The offhanded announcement of his candidacy last month—he initiated it by phoning a few reporters—seemed to indicate as much. It was, for instance, unadorned with such niceties as a gubernatorial program. Indeed, the independently wealthy Spitzer, the stiff-backed, virtuous, sometimes vengeful “plutocrat populist,” as friends would have it, seemed to feel it was enough, at this point, to offer a few perfunctory comments (accountability was a central theme) and his résumé. So did some admirers, who started to call him Governor......"

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/10815/

 

[Hangar18]

You guys have been swallowing to much of the NRA paranoia BS. You should know, if you ever paid any attention, that certain gun manufacturers were supplying handguns to some of their distributers in suspiciously large quantities. Turns out they were being supplied by the distributors to people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. That's the history behind the lawsuit by Cuomo and Spitzer. I've supplied plenty of links in past topics about it.

Here's a little more: "More than a year ago, Spitzer began talks aimed at persuading gunmakers to adopt a code of conduct and change manufacturing and distributing practices to prevent the flow of weapons to criminals.

The code asked gun makers to install gun locks on all the firearms they sell, introduce within three years ``smart gun'' technology and prohibit the sales of its weapons at gun shows without a background check.

"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer. ....."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/26/null/main209438.shtml

.....

That was pure comedy.

Turns out two different courts didn't agree with Mr. Spitzer or your assertion of "certain gun manufacturers were supplying handguns to some of their distributers in suspiciously large quantities. Turns out they were being supplied by the distributors to people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. That's the history behind the lawsuit by Cuomo and Spitzer" to the tune of throwing the suit out of court by acting NY state Supreme Court justice Louis York, only to have it again rejected by the state appeals court.

"Judge Marlow rebuked Mr. Spitzer’s attempt to use litigation to achieve victories for the gun control lobby without the need for legislation: "Courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

Spitzer’s Nuisance by WALTER OLSON (NY Daily Sun) - A little more recent than June, 2000

Yes that's an editorial, but the quoted section above is direct from the judge.

And we all know how well those smart guns and trigger locks work.

I am surprised you have a problem with my position, given the fact you were touting Howard the Dean and his gun friendly state policies in Vermont.

I won't argue that Spitzer has and is doing some very good things. But in my book when someone is on the wrong side of this particular argument, they don't earn my vote. This is indefensible so save your time. And it is not even close to being the same thing as GW saying he would sign the "Scary-looking-weapons" bill if it passed the legislature. He did nothing to promote it, and knew damn well it would not pass.

 

[A-con]

I don't mean to hijack your thread Ithaca, but;

"certain gun manufacturers were supplying handguns to some of their distributers in suspiciously large quantities. Turns out they were being supplied by the distributors to people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. "

It was the "people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. " who were in the wrong, but Spitzer went after the manufacturers. Thats like prosacuting a drug manufactuer because drugies abuse vicodin.

I'll keep an open mind regarding Spitzer.

As far as my (California) AG, "Bill Lockyer" he's a hack, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"And we all know how well those smart guns and trigger locks work.

I am surprised you have a problem with my position, given the fact you were touting Howard the Dean and his gun friendly state policies in Vermont.

I won't argue that Spitzer has and is doing some very good things. But in my book when someone is on the wrong side of this particular argument, they don't earn my vote......"

Well! First, I'm a little surprised to find out trigger locks don't work. I've seen a couple that look pretty foolproof. Well, maybe they should be called "action locks".

Second, I'm surprised to find out you're a one issue voter.

It's a fact that some manufacturers were selling suspiciously large quantities of some handgun models popular with gangs to some distributors and the distributors were selling suspiciously large quantities of those gang popular models to some characters who were selling them to gangs. That's not what the judges were ruling on. They were ruling on the validity of Spitzers arguments, based on law, in his case. He tried something novel and didn't pull it off. I chaulk it up to youthful inexperience. Don't try to make it sound like there wasn't a problem that Eliot was trying to solve.

Try to imagine this: Suppose you're a manufacturer and a particular distributor is buying an unusually large number of one particular handgun model that is real popular with gangs and selling them to just one or two individuals who are buying them as quickly as the law allows, over and over. In fact, in one year they bought 40 of that model. Do you assume they are just avid collectors who want 40 of them sitting in brand new boxes in their gun closets or does it occur to you that they might be re-selling them on the street? The manufacturers knew exactly what was going on and chose to ignore it. After all, isn't it wonderfull to have one distributer moving so many of that model? That's what creates a problem that has to be addressed.

I'm watching very carefully all the other stuff he's doing and I see the most courageous Attorney General in the country going after industries that no other politician would dare confront. In fact, compared to him, I'd say the rest of the state Attorney Generals are pretty worthless. So are the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating the industries that Eliot is winning his suits against. Can you name any other politician who has done as much for the average citizen as Eliot?
He sure makes your buddy Dubya look like shit.

 

[BuzzH]

Ithaca,

What, shrubs done all kinds of stuff...admittedly all shit, but he has done some stuff.

The list is pretty impressive:

National deficit through the roof, largest in history.

Foreign relations in the tank.

Passed the patriot act (single largest stripping of civil liberties in the history of the U.S.)

Agreed to resign the assaults weapons ban.

Took care of Saddam...and his pyrex measuring cup, latex gloves, and spatula.

Has taken care of 1500+ American soldiers.

Has been really easy on his CEO buddies who've bilked millions from retirement accounts.

Lowered drinking water contaminants allowed...is there such a thing as TOO little contaminants in drinking water...maybe Shrub and his immediate family should be required to only drink water with the maximum allowed if he's so sure it wont "hurt nuthin'"

Relaxed environmental laws across the board, allowing for more drilling, more grazing, and more destruction of the environment.

Has tried relentlessly to do away with NEPA, EIS, EA, and ESA...but we've now got the "healthy forest initiative"...too bad he cant afford to fund it.

Founded and funded an entire new branch of government at a huge cost to the taxpayer...and then calls it "homeland security"...yet our borders and homeland are no more secure NOW then they were before 9/11/2001.

Speaking of 9/11...I wonder where Bin Laden is? Probably slipping across the Mexican border as we speak.

Oh, and arent shrubs oil baron buddies just making a killing these days every time a tax-payer stops at the gas station?


Heres the funniest thing I've heard in a long time...a recent poll found shrubs approval rating hovering at a whopping 38%...thats really funny considering he was just elected for a SECOND term a few short months ago. Where the voters out of their minds then or has that much changed in a few months? Or is it they just dont like the high price of gas?

 

[Ithaca 37]

hangar, Maybe if you read this real slowly, you'll be able to understand what was going on and what problem Eliot was trying to solve without creating a new law:

Spitzer Lawsuit Employs New Legal Approach to Compel Changes in the Industry



In a major lawsuit filed today, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer charged that handgun manufacturers’ and wholesalers’ sales and distribution practices violate New York State laws.
With the action, New York becomes the first state in the nation to sue gun manufacturers.


"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer, who was joined at a New York City news conference by U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, anti-gun violence advocates and law enforcement officials.

Spitzer’s lawsuit charges nine gun manufacturers, three importers and twelve wholesalers with contributing to and maintaining a public nuisance through ongoing production and distribution practices. Among the manufacturers named are: Glock; Sturm-Ruger; Colt’s; Beretta; Taurus; Bryco; and Intratec.

The lawsuit does not include the Smith & Wesson Company, the nation’s largest gun manufacturer, which earlier this year signed an agreement accepting design, distribution and marketing reforms. The landmark agreement was signed by Cuomo, Spitzer and officials from 18 other state and local governments.

Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. New York’s lawsuit is an important step that increases the pressure on irresponsible gun makers and distributors to agree to reforms that will prevent needless deaths and injuries caused by firearms."

Unlike lawsuits filed by more than 30 cities and counties during the last two years, the Attorney General’s case focuses on a statutory provision of New York law that explicitly defines unlawfully-possessed handguns as a public nuisance.

The statute, New York Penal Law §400.05(1), states that any unlawfully possessed, manufactured, transported or disposed handgun "is hereby declared a nuisance." For decades, police agencies in New York have used this statute to seize and destroy weapons used in crimes. This is the first application of the statute on a large scale in a civil action brought by the state.

Specifically, the manufacturers and wholesalers are accused of contributing to and maintaining the public nuisance by engaging in design and distribution practices that place guns in the hands of criminals in New York State.

The suit charges that while on notice through trace requests by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that their distribution mechanisms routinely channel guns to criminals, the defendant manufacturers and wholesalers continued providing an endless supply through the same means. They thus seek to profit from that portion of the production and sale of handguns that they know become unlawfully possessed and are used to kill and injure New Yorkers.
"We have a strong case built upon a solid legal foundation. We have cited a clear statute, we have undisputed authority to begin legal action and we can document -- using federal data -- repeated conduct that clearly violates the law," Spitzer said.

The goal of Spitzer’s suit is to change the conduct of manufacturers and wholesalers. Once it is shown that gun manufacturers and wholesalers contribute to and maintain a public nuisance, the companies could be required to "abate" or fix the problem. The court could then:
Ban crime-friendly gun models;
Bar companies from supplying retailers who have a track record of selling to criminals; and
Appoint a monitor to supervise the gun distribution system.

In addition, the court could require manufacturers to buy back illegally-obtained guns seized in the commission of crimes.

Spitzer said the goal of the lawsuit is the same as the earlier effort to negotiate with gun companies. "We are advancing reasonable and responsible steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make firearms safer for legal gun owners and their families," he said.

Spitzer noted that the lawsuit will complement gun legislation that was approved recently by the New York State Legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Pataki. The legislation takes positive steps in the areas of gun safety and gun tracking and includes measures such as: requiring trigger locks on guns; banning assault weapons; establishing a ballistic databank; requiring background checks at gun shows; and increasing the age for obtaining a gun license.

The Spitzer lawsuit, which was filed today in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, focuses instead on the key issues of gun distribution and sales, which will greatly diminish the number of illegal guns on the streets.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2000/jun/jun25a_00.html

 

[Hangar18]

OK Ithaca, I read it slowly, twice even. Here, I'll go back and read it a third time.








Done now.

I believe I understand the problem Mr. Spitzer was trying to solve. That's all well and good, but maybe you missed this part of my post:

Turns out two different courts didn't agree with Mr. Spitzer or your assertion of "certain gun manufacturers were supplying handguns to some of their distributers in suspiciously large quantities. Turns out they were being supplied by the distributors to people who were re-selling them to criminal gangs. That's the history behind the lawsuit by Cuomo and Spitzer" to the tune of throwing the suit out of court by acting NY state Supreme Court justice Louis York, only to have it again rejected by the state appeals court.

"Judge Marlow rebuked Mr. Spitzer’s attempt to use litigation to achieve victories for the gun control lobby without the need for legislation: "Courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns."

To repeat - The courts didn't agree with Mr. Spitzer's claims. Maybe because they did not agree that the problem Mr. Spitzer was trying to solve was a problem to begin with, because there weren't enough "facts" to substain it. Both articles you referenced were written in 2000. The rulings in the courts occured in 2001 and 2003. Check your calendar, I am pretty sure 2001 comes after 2000. 2003 appears to also come after 2000. At least that's how it appears on my checkbook calendar.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is one of two issues that is guaranteed to swing my vote one way or the other.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market.

It is the local dealers who sell the guns to the public, or to "criminals." It is the ATF's job to monitor those dealers - this is a failure by a government agency to do its job, not something that can be blamed on the manufacturers or even the wholesalers. A company is in business to make a profit, and the manufacturers are making and selling a legal product. All the rest of the "arguments" in favor of his law suit are just smoke and mirrors to cover up his real intent.

 

[Ithaca 37]

BS, any manufacturer know if one of their distributors is ordering any product in suspicious quantities. They check it out to find out if there is a potential market that the other distributors are missing. That's when they find out what's going on. I did it about 20,000 times in my career with a manufacturer.

 

[A-con]

Ithaca, you avoided Calif. Hunters point ( and mine ).
Should GM be sued because some car dealer sold an Astro Van to a known drunk driver ? NO
Should Craftsman be prosecuted because Sears sold a crow bar to a burglar ? NO
Did Spitzer go after gun manufactures in order to circumvent the 2nd amendment, and because there was more money to be made in deep pockets ? YES
Did it have anything to do with public safety ? NO
Did Spitzer, in fact, file a frivolous law suite, to gain money and fame ? YES
Does this make him just another ambitious politician, more interested in his own career than doing the right thing ? Like I said, I’ll try to keep an open mind, but that’s one strike.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Ithaca, with his penchant for adoration of certain public figures, must have been one of those guys screaming and swooning with the gals over the Beatles - or Elvis. hump

Once he bites their bait, he is hooked! NO amount of reason will prevail - just what he accuses the Bush fans of! |oo

 

[Ithaca 37]

Calif. Hunter, No, that's complete BS. Here's what's really going on. He's a close friend of my family and I know what he's like and he'd make a great President. So I'm working on getting him there. He's extremely intelligent, independant, hard working, honest, innovative, fearless, uncompromised, considerate, thoughtful, kind, compassionate, humorous and has more integrity than any other politician I've ever known. I've worked with, gone to school with and known some Governors and Congressmen quite well before they even ran for office, so it's not like I don't know politicians. Eliot is the best I've ever seen. You and all the rest of the crowd here in SI would be wise to watch him carefully. Any mistakes he's ever made have been because of youth, inexperience, and that fact that he sails uncharted waters no other politician has the guts to go near. He learns from any mistakes, too. Growing up in a city and being completely unfamiliar with guns, hunters, the NRA and all it's paranoia, and the types of simpletons who sometimes post here in SI, it's understandable that he didn't know what he was getting into with Smith and Wesson. He now understands the gun nut situation much better.

I'm doing everything I can to help him understand the issues I'm concerned about. I might even pass on some of the remarks I see here in SI to help him understand the depth of the NRA fostered paranoia amongst some hunters who aren't smart enough to see that they might be voting for politicians, based on gun rights issues, who are actually the worst enemy a hunter or fisherman could actually have.

I wish some of you were smart enough to ask yourself how much gun rights you've lost in the last thirty years compared to how much wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities you've lost. Once you figure that out maybe you'll smarten up. |oo

 

[Calif. Hunter]

If he is truly all that and a bag of chips, it is unfortunately probable that he will never make it as politician.

He will be forced to compromise, and that is just the start. Will the goal become more important than the values? If not, he won't make it and if it does, then he is no longer the man he started out as. I cannot imagine anyone with ethics and moral purpose as choosing a career in politics - at least after a few years' exposure to it. Sad, but true.