"Harkens" back to someone else we know, doesn't it?
Posted by Tom at September 21, 2005 08:16 AMHere's something we might all agree on...
I think all politicians should be required to put their assets in a blind trust. This would remove any conflict of interest in their decision making process.
Posted by muckdog at September 21, 2005 09:46 AMdo you think vp's ought to be allowed to collect deferred compensation from a company that he ran.. and was awarded no bid contracts in a war that he told lies to start...just wondering
Posted by dennis at September 21, 2005 09:53 AMMuck,
Agreed. Would that also apply to federal judges up for confirmation to the SCOTUS, or just politicos? It's so hard to tell the difference these days, though!
A blind trust - like 'Unka' Dick's?
The only blindnes involved in his trust is that of the Democrats over how much Halliburton has actually put into it while Dick's working for them on the national dime.
Posted by pessimist at September 21, 2005 10:01 AMDuke, I think it would apply to all judges, as they could potentially be deciding cases that would impact individual corporations. I think once a judge is confirmed, they'd have to move their family assets to a blind trust.
Heck, Greenspan has to have a blind trust.
Posted by muckdog at September 21, 2005 11:10 AMHeck, Greenspan has to have a blind trust
Fed. chairman? One would certanly hope so.
Hey muckdog.
If Hurricane Rita destroys much of Houston over the weekend do you think we should bother rebuilding it?
Posted by snark at September 21, 2005 01:58 PMI think all politicians should be required to put their assets in a blind trust. ...Posted by muckdog
Frist does have his assets in a blind trust. However, he can still and did, instruct the trust to sell. On June 13, he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Frist.
You are completely clueless.