Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Summer is too busy to do fresh oppo research. Reruns will have to do.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 26 2005, 10:56 AM)
Fuck it. I take back what I said about fixing it all. Let's just keep making ethics a partisan issue, that way the Reps can use their power to only investigate when they feel like it.
[right][snapback]97211[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]97211[/snapback][/right]
What part of my comment didn't you understand? I said you just can't say they all do it.
That is no excuse. I said let's have an ethics war. Is that partisan?
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 26 2005, 11:28 AM)
Hardly. Davis is a good opposition research player, but I haven't seen anything to point to it being anything other than that. If there's nothing new he'll trot out the same old stuff.
It's a propaganda war either way. Nobody has made a major move to stop ethics violations because they all run the same tightwire act of getting all the perks they can. A lot of it isn't even illegal or against rules, just tacky. But some people end up on the front page for tacky, while others get away with a lot more and it stays under the radar.
[right][snapback]97221[/snapback][/right]
It's a propaganda war either way. Nobody has made a major move to stop ethics violations because they all run the same tightwire act of getting all the perks they can. A lot of it isn't even illegal or against rules, just tacky. But some people end up on the front page for tacky, while others get away with a lot more and it stays under the radar.
[right][snapback]97221[/snapback][/right]
It's more than tacky. It's criminal.
I despised the Democrats for the same whore like behavior. THAT'S why I voted Nader in 2000. I actually listened to the Republicans when they said they'd return honor and integrity to the White House and feel I betrayed. Do you blame me? I HATE HYPOCRITES. THEY USED IT AS AN ELECTION ISSUE AND NOW THE ARE CASHING IN.
Of course I slam the Republicans more than the Democrats and that is why.
But that's what I've always been saying since I've been around. Is that trotting out the same old stuff? I'd call it consistency.
But you, you support the Republicans EVEN ON FLAG BURNING because you can make it a bullshit issue to fight about. You know better, that's what seperates you from the religous rightwingers. If liberals or lefties hate it you are all for it. Even if it destroys the big C. You are a rightwing militant and a reactionary nutcase.
Just what I didn't want to hear. Bastards.
AP: Blagojevich contributor gets contracts
By JOHN O'CONNOR
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A major contributor to Gov. Rod Blagojevich has received a half a million dollars in contracts for cleaning work that experts say is unnecessary or could be performed less expensively by state employees.
In one case, PWS Environmental Inc. got more than $7,000 to clean a brand-new, unused dome built to store road salt and apply a corrosion-resistant concrete sealer - duplicating work the dome's builder performed just months before, according to documents and Associated Press interviews.
Over the past five years, the Cicero firm has made political contributions totaling $65,000, mostly to Democrats. It has been hired by the state to wash road-salt domes, office buildings, bridges, rest area structures and Illinois Department of Transportation trucks, although state-owned equipment could be used for the work.
IDOT spokesman Mike Claffey said one reason the department hired the company to wash corrosive salt from bridges rather than assigning state employees to do the work is that the agency is understaffed because of budget cuts. He said IDOT was cleaning salt storage domes to cut deterioration and extend the domes' lives.
Richard Hanneman, president of the Salt Institute trade organization, said he had never heard of washing a concrete-and-wood salt dome. "I'm having a hard time envisioning why you would do it," he said.
In all, PWS Environmental has received contracts for $522,000 in state work this year, up from just $2,860 in 2001.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/p.../D8AVGTI80.html
AP: Blagojevich contributor gets contracts
By JOHN O'CONNOR
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A major contributor to Gov. Rod Blagojevich has received a half a million dollars in contracts for cleaning work that experts say is unnecessary or could be performed less expensively by state employees.
In one case, PWS Environmental Inc. got more than $7,000 to clean a brand-new, unused dome built to store road salt and apply a corrosion-resistant concrete sealer - duplicating work the dome's builder performed just months before, according to documents and Associated Press interviews.
Over the past five years, the Cicero firm has made political contributions totaling $65,000, mostly to Democrats. It has been hired by the state to wash road-salt domes, office buildings, bridges, rest area structures and Illinois Department of Transportation trucks, although state-owned equipment could be used for the work.
IDOT spokesman Mike Claffey said one reason the department hired the company to wash corrosive salt from bridges rather than assigning state employees to do the work is that the agency is understaffed because of budget cuts. He said IDOT was cleaning salt storage domes to cut deterioration and extend the domes' lives.
Richard Hanneman, president of the Salt Institute trade organization, said he had never heard of washing a concrete-and-wood salt dome. "I'm having a hard time envisioning why you would do it," he said.
In all, PWS Environmental has received contracts for $522,000 in state work this year, up from just $2,860 in 2001.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/p.../D8AVGTI80.html
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 26 2005, 02:59 PM)
But that's what I've always been saying since I've been around. Is that trotting out the same old stuff? I'd call it consistency.
But you, you support the Republicans EVEN ON FLAG BURNING because you can make it a bullshit issue to fight about. You know better, that's what seperates you from the religous rightwingers. If liberals or lefties hate it you are all for it. Even if it destroys the big C. You are a rightwing militant and a reactionary nutcase.
[right][snapback]97347[/snapback][/right]
And getting more militant all the time. Though I've specifically stated I wasn't for a flag burning ammendment I'm a bit sick of the left denigrating the US regardless of the issue. If it's bullshit for righties to protect the flag, it's at least as much bullshit for so many lefties to be so proud of being for burning it.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 26 2005, 07:02 PM)
And getting more militant all the time. Though I've specifically stated I wasn't for a flag burning ammendment I'm a bit sick of the left denigrating the US regardless of the issue. If it's bullshit for righties to protect the flag, it's at least as much bullshit for so many lefties to be so proud of being for burning it.
[right][snapback]97377[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]97377[/snapback][/right]
You've specifically stated you aren't for a flag burning amendment but you'll dismiss that in a heartbeat if you can be against liberals.
Getting arrogant to the point of stupidity.
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 26 2005, 06:13 PM)
You've specifically stated you aren't for a flag burning amendment but you'll dismiss that in a heartbeat if you can be against liberals.
[right][snapback]97386[/snapback][/right]
You get to decide for yourself what to fight for and what to dismiss. If burning the flag is that important to you go ahead and fight for your right to do what you please.
Hey artie, whatever you do, don't ever, ever admit anything the rightwing does is wrong or admit they are stepping over the line.
So tell me, what's after the flag burning amendment? What other thing are you going to embrace just because the left is against it? What kind of a centrist are you? What kind of a small "l" libertarian dismisses his previous beliefs and embraces BULLSHIT because it's wrapped in the flag or cleverly presented by Madison avenue and CIA information/disinformation dispersal techinques? Are you that brainwashed that you can't tell the difference between them anymore?
Oh wait, you're just jumping on the radical, militant bandwagon.
Welcome to the mob.
I saw you've got a cartoon now. It's called American Dad.
So tell me, what's after the flag burning amendment? What other thing are you going to embrace just because the left is against it? What kind of a centrist are you? What kind of a small "l" libertarian dismisses his previous beliefs and embraces BULLSHIT because it's wrapped in the flag or cleverly presented by Madison avenue and CIA information/disinformation dispersal techinques? Are you that brainwashed that you can't tell the difference between them anymore?
Oh wait, you're just jumping on the radical, militant bandwagon.
Welcome to the mob.
I saw you've got a cartoon now. It's called American Dad.
American Dad sucks.
I've told you exactly where I dissaggree with Reps and conservatives. If you can't remember that's your problem.
I've told you exactly where I dissaggree with Reps and conservatives. If you can't remember that's your problem.
Personally, I liken 'flag-desecrating' as a way to make one's political point to 'sexually explicit Rap' music to convey sexually-charged messages. It doesn't much work, does it?. There's a need for MEDIATION between the intended message and the received message. "Long, big black Cadillac parkef outside my sugar walls" does say a lot more than "big black dick next to my pussy", doesn't it?
"I voted Republican last year. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky
QUOTE(carpe diem @ Jun 27 2005, 05:37 PM)
"I voted Republican last year. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky
[right][snapback]97699[/snapback][/right]
How would she know? She hasn’t any taste to speak of and very little class. But she has a nice smile...so does a crocodile, another meat eater.
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Jun 27 2005, 07:44 PM)
How would she know? She hasn’t any taste to speak of and very little class. But she has a nice smile...so does a crocodile, another meat eater.
[right][snapback]97702[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]97702[/snapback][/right]
I don't think her smile--let alone a crocodiles--are very nice, at all.
Halliburton's Iraq deals called contract abuse
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON -- A top Army procurement official said today Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm.
Bunny Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official-turned whistle-blower, said in testimony at a hearing by Democrats on Capitol Hill that "every aspect" of Halliburton's oil contract in Iraq had been under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.
Her blistering criticism came as the Democrats released a new report including Pentagon audits that identified more than $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.
Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and has been accused by Democrats of getting lucrative work there because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney who headed the company from 1995-2000.
Pressed by lawmakers whether she thought the Defense Secretary's office was involved in the handout and running of contracts to KBR, Greenhouse replied: "That is true."
"I observed, first hand, that essentially every aspect of the RIO (Restore Iraqi Oil) contract remained under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This troubled me and was wrong," said Greenhouse.
Halliburton issued a statement strongly rejecting comments by Greenhouse and others at the hearing, including a former KBR employee who accused the company of overcharging for food services provided to troops under a logistics deal.
"The only thing that's been inflated is the political rhetoric which is mostly a rehash of last year's elections," said spokeswoman Cathy Mann of the hearing.
Regarding claims of political influence because of Cheney, Mann said it was easier to "assign devious motives than to take the time to learn the truth."
Both the Pentagon and the Army Corps of Engineers, which was in charge of a sole-source oil contract given to KBR in Iraq, have denied any special treatment for KBR. The Corps did not immediately respond to questions.
Democrats called for an urgent hearing and an investigation into what they said were contracting abuses involving KBR.
"This testimony doesn't just call for congressional oversight -- it screams for it," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota.
What concerned Greenhouse most was that the oil contract, which had a top value of $7 billion, was given to KBR without competitive bidding.
She irked her bosses by handwriting her concerns in official documents for the oil deal but said these were overlooked, she said.
In one instance, she said Army Corps officials bypassed getting her signature to grant a waiver for KBR to be relieved of its obligation to provide cost and pricing data for bringing fuel into Iraq.
That waiver was granted after a draft Army audit said KBR may have overcharged the military by at least $61 million to bring in fuel to Iraq to ease a shortage of refined oil.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3243195
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON -- A top Army procurement official said today Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm.
Bunny Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official-turned whistle-blower, said in testimony at a hearing by Democrats on Capitol Hill that "every aspect" of Halliburton's oil contract in Iraq had been under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.
Her blistering criticism came as the Democrats released a new report including Pentagon audits that identified more than $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.
Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and has been accused by Democrats of getting lucrative work there because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney who headed the company from 1995-2000.
Pressed by lawmakers whether she thought the Defense Secretary's office was involved in the handout and running of contracts to KBR, Greenhouse replied: "That is true."
"I observed, first hand, that essentially every aspect of the RIO (Restore Iraqi Oil) contract remained under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This troubled me and was wrong," said Greenhouse.
Halliburton issued a statement strongly rejecting comments by Greenhouse and others at the hearing, including a former KBR employee who accused the company of overcharging for food services provided to troops under a logistics deal.
"The only thing that's been inflated is the political rhetoric which is mostly a rehash of last year's elections," said spokeswoman Cathy Mann of the hearing.
Regarding claims of political influence because of Cheney, Mann said it was easier to "assign devious motives than to take the time to learn the truth."
Both the Pentagon and the Army Corps of Engineers, which was in charge of a sole-source oil contract given to KBR in Iraq, have denied any special treatment for KBR. The Corps did not immediately respond to questions.
Democrats called for an urgent hearing and an investigation into what they said were contracting abuses involving KBR.
"This testimony doesn't just call for congressional oversight -- it screams for it," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota.
What concerned Greenhouse most was that the oil contract, which had a top value of $7 billion, was given to KBR without competitive bidding.
She irked her bosses by handwriting her concerns in official documents for the oil deal but said these were overlooked, she said.
In one instance, she said Army Corps officials bypassed getting her signature to grant a waiver for KBR to be relieved of its obligation to provide cost and pricing data for bringing fuel into Iraq.
That waiver was granted after a draft Army audit said KBR may have overcharged the military by at least $61 million to bring in fuel to Iraq to ease a shortage of refined oil.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3243195
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Jun 27 2005, 11:44 PM)
How would she know? She hasn’t any taste to speak of and very little class. But she has a nice smile...so does a crocodile, another meat eater.
[right][snapback]97702[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]97702[/snapback][/right]
Maybe for the work she did in the Oral Office?
Scandal has Hopi Tribe lacking a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
Ring resigns after being questioned by Sen. McCain in fraud investigation
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
The Hopi Tribe no longer will be represented in Washington, D.C., by a lobbyist who took the Fifth Amendment last week rather than testify in a U.S. Senate investigation into suspected exploitation of Indian tribes.
Kevin Ring, who was the object of harsh questioning by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on his dealings with now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, resigned Friday, and the lobbying firm he works for also pulled out, the Hopis announced.
Neither the tribe nor the Barnes & Thornburg firm in Washington would comment on whether the split was entirely voluntary.
advertisement
Ring worked as an associate of Abramoff for more than five years on many of the lobbyist's multimillion-dollar accounts.
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by McCain, and a federal grand jury are investigating possible fraud by Abramoff and public relations partner Michael Scanlon that came to light early last year.
A spokeswoman for the Hopis said after Wednesday's committee hearing that the tribe still had confidence in Ring despite McCain's implication that he was part of a pattern of wrongdoing at the expense of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
Ring responded to all Senate questions by invoking his constitutional right not to testify.
The Choctaws, who have major casino and business interests, paid what investigators estimated were about $15 million in excessive fees to Abramoff and Scanlon.
Lobbying records show that the Hopis, who have no gambling operations, paid at least $700,000 for lobbying and legal services since 2001.
Dave Palermo, special assistant to Hopi Tribal Chairman Wayne Taylor Jr., would not comment on circumstances of the withdrawal by Ring and his employer.
Alan Levin, managing partner of Barnes & Thornburg, said the firm was aware of Ring's situation when it hired him six months ago. "We have complete confidence in Kevin," he said.
Ring had served the Hopis and Choctaws for several years before the lobbying scandal broke, and both tribes rehired him this year. His firm continues to represent the Choctaws, Levin said.
McCain peppered Ring with questions about establishing a consulting firm at his home and taking a $25,000 payment from an Abramoff company. The senator also inquired about a $125,000 payment from Scanlon's firm that came originally from the Pueblo Sandia Tribe of New Mexico.
According to published accounts, Ring returned the $25,000 and surrendered $135,000, the actual amount of the payment McCain referred to, for restitution.
McCain, citing an e-mail in which Ring asked if he could "bury" his university club dues in Choctaw billings, said evidence showed that the billing was done.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0628hopi-lobby28.html
Ring resigns after being questioned by Sen. McCain in fraud investigation
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
The Hopi Tribe no longer will be represented in Washington, D.C., by a lobbyist who took the Fifth Amendment last week rather than testify in a U.S. Senate investigation into suspected exploitation of Indian tribes.
Kevin Ring, who was the object of harsh questioning by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on his dealings with now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, resigned Friday, and the lobbying firm he works for also pulled out, the Hopis announced.
Neither the tribe nor the Barnes & Thornburg firm in Washington would comment on whether the split was entirely voluntary.
advertisement
Ring worked as an associate of Abramoff for more than five years on many of the lobbyist's multimillion-dollar accounts.
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, chaired by McCain, and a federal grand jury are investigating possible fraud by Abramoff and public relations partner Michael Scanlon that came to light early last year.
A spokeswoman for the Hopis said after Wednesday's committee hearing that the tribe still had confidence in Ring despite McCain's implication that he was part of a pattern of wrongdoing at the expense of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
Ring responded to all Senate questions by invoking his constitutional right not to testify.
The Choctaws, who have major casino and business interests, paid what investigators estimated were about $15 million in excessive fees to Abramoff and Scanlon.
Lobbying records show that the Hopis, who have no gambling operations, paid at least $700,000 for lobbying and legal services since 2001.
Dave Palermo, special assistant to Hopi Tribal Chairman Wayne Taylor Jr., would not comment on circumstances of the withdrawal by Ring and his employer.
Alan Levin, managing partner of Barnes & Thornburg, said the firm was aware of Ring's situation when it hired him six months ago. "We have complete confidence in Kevin," he said.
Ring had served the Hopis and Choctaws for several years before the lobbying scandal broke, and both tribes rehired him this year. His firm continues to represent the Choctaws, Levin said.
McCain peppered Ring with questions about establishing a consulting firm at his home and taking a $25,000 payment from an Abramoff company. The senator also inquired about a $125,000 payment from Scanlon's firm that came originally from the Pueblo Sandia Tribe of New Mexico.
According to published accounts, Ring returned the $25,000 and surrendered $135,000, the actual amount of the payment McCain referred to, for restitution.
McCain, citing an e-mail in which Ring asked if he could "bury" his university club dues in Choctaw billings, said evidence showed that the billing was done.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0628hopi-lobby28.html
QUOTE(carpe diem @ Jun 27 2005, 03:37 PM)
"I voted Republican last year. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky
[right][snapback]97699[/snapback][/right]
Oh look. Another dumb f__k bush ass kiss making sh_t up as usual. Or is it just another of pathetics psueds?
Quick!! Someone bring up flag burning!! Puuuuleassssse?
Congressman Gets U.S. Document Subpoena
By SETH HETTENA
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 6:54 PM
SAN DIEGO -- A California congressman who sold his house to a defense contractor who later took a big loss on it has been issued a subpoena for documents by a federal grand jury, his attorney said Tuesday.
Prosecutors are investigating Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's sale at what may have been an inflated price.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, disclosed the subpoena in a brief statement, but did not specify what documents were being sought. Reached by phone, Blalack declined further comment.
Cunningham has said that he showed poor judgment in selling the house, but said he acted honestly and predicted that an investigation would prove that.
The former Navy "Top Gun" fighter pilot and eight-term Republican congressman sold his home in 2003 to Mitchell Wade, a campaign contributor and close friend.
Wade paid $1.7 million in November 2003 for the 3,826-square-foot house in wealthy, seaside Del Mar, just north of San Diego. He put it back on the market soon after and eventually took a $700,000 loss when he resold it in October 2004. During that span, home prices in San Diego County rose an average of nearly 25 percent.
Meanwhile, Wade's little-known company, Washington, D.C.-based MZM Inc., was increasing its federal contracting business. In 2004, MZM tripled its revenue and nearly quadrupled its staff, according to the company's Web site.
follow the money...
Cunningham serves on the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense contracting dollars.
Meanwhile, MZM said Tuesday it is overhauling its management team amid questions over whether the company will be harmed by the investigation. In a brief statement, MZM said James C. King, a retired three-star Army general, was taking over as president and chief executive. That role was previously held by Wade, who founded the company in 1993.
The statement made no mention of Wade. An MZM spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062801178.html
Congressman Gets U.S. Document Subpoena
By SETH HETTENA
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 6:54 PM
SAN DIEGO -- A California congressman who sold his house to a defense contractor who later took a big loss on it has been issued a subpoena for documents by a federal grand jury, his attorney said Tuesday.
Prosecutors are investigating Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's sale at what may have been an inflated price.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, disclosed the subpoena in a brief statement, but did not specify what documents were being sought. Reached by phone, Blalack declined further comment.
Cunningham has said that he showed poor judgment in selling the house, but said he acted honestly and predicted that an investigation would prove that.
The former Navy "Top Gun" fighter pilot and eight-term Republican congressman sold his home in 2003 to Mitchell Wade, a campaign contributor and close friend.
Wade paid $1.7 million in November 2003 for the 3,826-square-foot house in wealthy, seaside Del Mar, just north of San Diego. He put it back on the market soon after and eventually took a $700,000 loss when he resold it in October 2004. During that span, home prices in San Diego County rose an average of nearly 25 percent.
Meanwhile, Wade's little-known company, Washington, D.C.-based MZM Inc., was increasing its federal contracting business. In 2004, MZM tripled its revenue and nearly quadrupled its staff, according to the company's Web site.
follow the money...
Cunningham serves on the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense contracting dollars.
Meanwhile, MZM said Tuesday it is overhauling its management team amid questions over whether the company will be harmed by the investigation. In a brief statement, MZM said James C. King, a retired three-star Army general, was taking over as president and chief executive. That role was previously held by Wade, who founded the company in 1993.
The statement made no mention of Wade. An MZM spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062801178.html
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 26 2005, 04:45 PM)
What part of my comment didn't you understand? I said you just can't say they all do it.
[right][snapback]97336[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]97336[/snapback][/right]
But it worked soooo well for the Clintonistas!
Clinton again.
Yeah, a president from 5 years ago that crossed the line means it's OK for EVERYONE to do it now. Twisted. Silly, too.
Hey Tom, why don't you jump off a cliff, some guy did it and survived, so I guss that means it's ok for EVERYONE to do it.
Yeah, a president from 5 years ago that crossed the line means it's OK for EVERYONE to do it now. Twisted. Silly, too.
Hey Tom, why don't you jump off a cliff, some guy did it and survived, so I guss that means it's ok for EVERYONE to do it.
House Defeats Bid to Block $3,100 Pay Raise
From Times Wire Reports
The House agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year — to $165,200 — after defeating an effort to roll it back.
In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) to force an up-or-down vote on the raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise — officially a cost-of-living adjustment.
"Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices," Matheson said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
From Times Wire Reports
The House agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year — to $165,200 — after defeating an effort to roll it back.
In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) to force an up-or-down vote on the raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise — officially a cost-of-living adjustment.
"Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices," Matheson said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 29 2005, 07:22 AM)
House Defeats Bid to Block $3,100 Pay Raise
From Times Wire Reports
The House agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year — to $165,200 — after defeating an effort to roll it back.
In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) to force an up-or-down vote on the raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise — officially a cost-of-living adjustment.
"Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices," Matheson said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
[right][snapback]98152[/snapback][/right]
From Times Wire Reports
The House agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year — to $165,200 — after defeating an effort to roll it back.
In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) to force an up-or-down vote on the raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise — officially a cost-of-living adjustment.
"Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices," Matheson said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
[right][snapback]98152[/snapback][/right]
Shows you just how "fiscally conservative" and "supportive of the war" these goons in power really are.
Want To Become Bush's Next Ambassador?
By Georg Mascolo
Want to become a US ambassador? It's not as hard as you may think. Just donate a couple of hundred thousand to President George W. Bush's campaign coffers and pick your city. The president's new cadre of diplomats tend to be generous campaign donors, including the wealthy Ohio ball-bearing manufacture who is expected to run the US Embassy in Berlin.
It's possible that David Wilkins, 58, is just a tad too honest for his new job as Ambassador of the United States in Canada. How else to explain his admission that he's only visited America's big neighbor to the north once in his life -- 34 years ago -- on a visit to see Niagara Falls? Wilkins, a deeply religious South Carolina Republican, sees his appointment to the diplomatic corps as a "sign of God."
In truth, one could probably look to more worldly reasons to explain the appointment. Wilkins is one of the Republican Party's most talented fundraisers; in return for his efforts, which helped secure the re-election of US President George W. Bush, the party rewarded Wilkins with the honorary title of "Ranger," a distinction that's bestowed on anyone who contributes or raises more than $200,000 for the party.
In the coming months, Rangers, Pioneers (starting at $100,000) and Super Rangers ($300,000 and up) will be beginning their new jobs as diplomats all over the world. According to the most recent count, 30 of the Republican Party's biggest donors have been rewarded with posts in sun-drenched island nations like Mauritius and the Bahamas, or in prestigious European capitals.
Among those prestigious capitals is Berlin. Last week, the US State Department informed the German Foreign Ministry that William Robert Timken, 66, an Ohio industrialist, will assume the post of US Ambassador to Germany this fall -- a post that has been vacant for the past four months since Daniel Coates's term ended. It is a position that Timkin, a Super Ranger with ancestors from Germany, requested himself.
Want a post as an ambassador? You'll need to donate a pile of these to the Republican party.
The consulate-for-cash principle isn't exactly new. Next to nights in the White House, parties at Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch and invitations to state dinners, diplomatic service is considered the most sought-after form of recognition for the party's big spenders. And the price for a ticket into the diplomatic corps is high -- at least six figures according to an unwritten rule that's been in place ever since Richard Nixon was in the White House. Back then, the president instructed his chief of staff that "anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000."
Despite legislation enacted in 1980, under which campaign contributions may not be used as a factor in the selection of new ambassadors, US presidents, including George W. Bush, have never felt particularly bound by the law. Former US President Bill Clinton also used campaign contributions as a factor when choosing political appointees -- albeit not nearly to the same degree as the current president. Indeed, according to the conservative political magazine National Journal, "Bush's first 35 political appointees to the diplomatic corps gave an average of $141,110 to him and other Republican campaigns and committees during 1999-2000." The practice is continuing during his second term, and even members of Bush's new administration are beginning to doubt whether using successful fundraisers as diplomats is such a good idea, especially in light of the current global mood.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,362387,00.html
By Georg Mascolo
Want to become a US ambassador? It's not as hard as you may think. Just donate a couple of hundred thousand to President George W. Bush's campaign coffers and pick your city. The president's new cadre of diplomats tend to be generous campaign donors, including the wealthy Ohio ball-bearing manufacture who is expected to run the US Embassy in Berlin.
It's possible that David Wilkins, 58, is just a tad too honest for his new job as Ambassador of the United States in Canada. How else to explain his admission that he's only visited America's big neighbor to the north once in his life -- 34 years ago -- on a visit to see Niagara Falls? Wilkins, a deeply religious South Carolina Republican, sees his appointment to the diplomatic corps as a "sign of God."
In truth, one could probably look to more worldly reasons to explain the appointment. Wilkins is one of the Republican Party's most talented fundraisers; in return for his efforts, which helped secure the re-election of US President George W. Bush, the party rewarded Wilkins with the honorary title of "Ranger," a distinction that's bestowed on anyone who contributes or raises more than $200,000 for the party.
In the coming months, Rangers, Pioneers (starting at $100,000) and Super Rangers ($300,000 and up) will be beginning their new jobs as diplomats all over the world. According to the most recent count, 30 of the Republican Party's biggest donors have been rewarded with posts in sun-drenched island nations like Mauritius and the Bahamas, or in prestigious European capitals.
Among those prestigious capitals is Berlin. Last week, the US State Department informed the German Foreign Ministry that William Robert Timken, 66, an Ohio industrialist, will assume the post of US Ambassador to Germany this fall -- a post that has been vacant for the past four months since Daniel Coates's term ended. It is a position that Timkin, a Super Ranger with ancestors from Germany, requested himself.
Want a post as an ambassador? You'll need to donate a pile of these to the Republican party.
The consulate-for-cash principle isn't exactly new. Next to nights in the White House, parties at Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch and invitations to state dinners, diplomatic service is considered the most sought-after form of recognition for the party's big spenders. And the price for a ticket into the diplomatic corps is high -- at least six figures according to an unwritten rule that's been in place ever since Richard Nixon was in the White House. Back then, the president instructed his chief of staff that "anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000."
Despite legislation enacted in 1980, under which campaign contributions may not be used as a factor in the selection of new ambassadors, US presidents, including George W. Bush, have never felt particularly bound by the law. Former US President Bill Clinton also used campaign contributions as a factor when choosing political appointees -- albeit not nearly to the same degree as the current president. Indeed, according to the conservative political magazine National Journal, "Bush's first 35 political appointees to the diplomatic corps gave an average of $141,110 to him and other Republican campaigns and committees during 1999-2000." The practice is continuing during his second term, and even members of Bush's new administration are beginning to doubt whether using successful fundraisers as diplomats is such a good idea, especially in light of the current global mood.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,362387,00.html
This is one of those times where it really is just - sadly - business as usual, Bee. Congress set this game up to take the heat off in an election year and then realized they had bought a permanent ticket on the Gravy Train, to wit -
"...Like most Americans, you're probably saying, "Huh?" Congress has set up a process regarding its own pay that is so convoluted that an individual Member of Congress can always say they never voted on a pay raise - the vote is always on something just a little different. The current system gives them ample ammunition to try and snow reporters and obfuscate to the max. How did the current system get set up?
Here's the deal. Back in 1989, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act to, well, reform ethics in Washington. (Around that time in Washington, the House had a Speaker who was under attack for his ethics by a little-known backbench Congressman who would later become Speaker himself and come under attack for his ethics and later resign.) [Editor's note, added by me: that was the 100th Congress led in the House by the Hon. Jim Wright (D-Texas) and in the Senate by Sen John C. Stennis (D-Mississippi).]In the Ethics Reform Act, Congress prohibited something called "honoraria." Honoraria was a check given directly to a Member of Congress in return for speaking at a meeting or conference - up to $2,000. Banning honoraria was deemed a good move because it was widely used only by special interest groups to line the pockets of Members of Congress. There weren't a lot of elementary schools putting up honoraria. In return for giving up honoraria, Congress eliminated voting on pay raises every year and instead gave themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment similar to what other federal employees receive. (A cost-of-living-adjustment is a pay raise based on a percentage of your current salary intended to defray inflation.) So since 1989, annually, Members of Congress will automatically get a pay raise unless they vote to block it.
But it gets more convoluted. Every year, there are 13 spending bills that make up the federal budget, and each one funds a few specific things. The one that funds all the activities of the Congress is called the Legislative Branch Appropriations (more info in Kings of the Legislative Branch). But Congress doesn't fund its own salaries out of this bill - that would, well, make sense. Instead, Congress funds its salaries in the same bill as all other federal employees: the Treasury-Postal Appropriations (more info in Kings of the Treasury Postal). For full disclosure, the full name of this bill is actually "Appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002." So unless Congress inserts an amendment into this particular spending bill, or another bill, the pay raise goes forward.
Why does Congress do it this way? Because over the years, they've figured out a way to get the money without taking a straightforward, tough vote. Members of Congress don't have it easy - they are constantly separated from their families, many carry two mortgages, and a percentage of their constituents will always dislike them no matter what they do. The current system is so convoluted that a Member of Congress can accurately, but not necessarily very honestly, say "I didn't vote for a pay raise" because the vote itself is not actually a straight up or down vote on a pay raise. In fact, the way Congress has set it up, there can't be a straight up or down vote on a pay raise...."
Source: http://www.yourcongress.com/viewarticle.asp?article_id=2026
Just another outcome of the endemic of Potomac Fever.
"...Like most Americans, you're probably saying, "Huh?" Congress has set up a process regarding its own pay that is so convoluted that an individual Member of Congress can always say they never voted on a pay raise - the vote is always on something just a little different. The current system gives them ample ammunition to try and snow reporters and obfuscate to the max. How did the current system get set up?
Here's the deal. Back in 1989, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act to, well, reform ethics in Washington. (Around that time in Washington, the House had a Speaker who was under attack for his ethics by a little-known backbench Congressman who would later become Speaker himself and come under attack for his ethics and later resign.) [Editor's note, added by me: that was the 100th Congress led in the House by the Hon. Jim Wright (D-Texas) and in the Senate by Sen John C. Stennis (D-Mississippi).]In the Ethics Reform Act, Congress prohibited something called "honoraria." Honoraria was a check given directly to a Member of Congress in return for speaking at a meeting or conference - up to $2,000. Banning honoraria was deemed a good move because it was widely used only by special interest groups to line the pockets of Members of Congress. There weren't a lot of elementary schools putting up honoraria. In return for giving up honoraria, Congress eliminated voting on pay raises every year and instead gave themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment similar to what other federal employees receive. (A cost-of-living-adjustment is a pay raise based on a percentage of your current salary intended to defray inflation.) So since 1989, annually, Members of Congress will automatically get a pay raise unless they vote to block it.
But it gets more convoluted. Every year, there are 13 spending bills that make up the federal budget, and each one funds a few specific things. The one that funds all the activities of the Congress is called the Legislative Branch Appropriations (more info in Kings of the Legislative Branch). But Congress doesn't fund its own salaries out of this bill - that would, well, make sense. Instead, Congress funds its salaries in the same bill as all other federal employees: the Treasury-Postal Appropriations (more info in Kings of the Treasury Postal). For full disclosure, the full name of this bill is actually "Appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002." So unless Congress inserts an amendment into this particular spending bill, or another bill, the pay raise goes forward.
Why does Congress do it this way? Because over the years, they've figured out a way to get the money without taking a straightforward, tough vote. Members of Congress don't have it easy - they are constantly separated from their families, many carry two mortgages, and a percentage of their constituents will always dislike them no matter what they do. The current system is so convoluted that a Member of Congress can accurately, but not necessarily very honestly, say "I didn't vote for a pay raise" because the vote itself is not actually a straight up or down vote on a pay raise. In fact, the way Congress has set it up, there can't be a straight up or down vote on a pay raise...."
Source: http://www.yourcongress.com/viewarticle.asp?article_id=2026
Just another outcome of the endemic of Potomac Fever.
I notice not many are rushing to make a change.
Actually, considering how they cash AFTER they've left Congress, the pay raise is peanuts.
They could set an example and make that little sacrifice.
Actually, considering how they cash AFTER they've left Congress, the pay raise is peanuts.
They could set an example and make that little sacrifice.
Thanks for the thoughtful post Russ, very informative.
And depressing.
And depressing.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 29 2005, 07:42 AM)
Why does Congress do it this way? Because over the years, they've figured out a way to get the money without taking a straightforward, tough vote. Members of Congress don't have it easy - they are constantly separated from their families, many carry two mortgages, and a percentage of their constituents will always dislike them no matter what they do. The current system is so convoluted that a Member of Congress can accurately, but not necessarily very honestly, say "I didn't vote for a pay raise" because the vote itself is not actually a straight up or down vote on a pay raise. In fact, the way Congress has set it up, there can't be a straight up or down vote on a pay raise...."
Source: http://www.yourcongress.com/viewarticle.asp?article_id=2026
Just another outcome of the endemic of Potomac Fever.
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]
Considering the money they control and the power they have the people don't pay them that much, but they MORE than make it up in other ways. Personally I'd rather pay them more and allow them very little outside income until WELL after they're out of office.
The revolving door, Congressman becomes a lobbyist scenario shouldn't be allowed.
What do you think would be a reasonable amount of time?
What do you think would be a reasonable amount of time?
At the least it should involve the same criteria and time limits they placed on the Executive Branch in law. As it stands now - no limitations, no criteria, no time limits for anyone in the Legislative Branch - staffers and officeholders alike. But Congress has been historically famous for writing laws that apply to others but leaving themselves most specifically exempt. As I recall many of the tenets of Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, workplace practices, etc., laws contain exceptions for Congress.
Like my daddy used to say, these guys are great at "Do like I say, not like I do."
Like my daddy used to say, these guys are great at "Do like I say, not like I do."
Wasn't that one of the main points of the Contract With America? Make laws apply to them too?
QUOTE
As I recall many of the tenets of Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, workplace practices, etc., laws contain exceptions for Congress.
Like my daddy used to say, these guys are great at "Do like I say, not like I do."
Like my daddy used to say, these guys are great at "Do like I say, not like I do."
That was much kinder than what my dad used to say.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 29 2005, 12:38 PM)
Wasn't that one of the main points of the Contract With America? Make laws apply to them too?
[right][snapback]98310[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]98310[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 29 2005, 10:55 AM)
The revolving door, Congressman becomes a lobbyist scenario shouldn't be allowed.
What do you think would be a reasonable amount of time?
[right][snapback]98292[/snapback][/right]
What do you think would be a reasonable amount of time?
[right][snapback]98292[/snapback][/right]
4 years, two Congresses. Long enough for their contacts and influence to dwindle.
do I hear a second? 
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Jun 29 2005, 11:11 AM)
4 years, two Congresses. Long enough for their contacts and influence to dwindle.
[right][snapback]98337[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]98337[/snapback][/right]
The longer they're in, the longer they should wait. More influence takes longer to dissipate. Of course that's a pipe dream.
June 24, 2005 latimes.com : Columns Print E-mail story Most E-mailed
Jonathan Chait:
Hustling on K Street
# Under the Republicans, it's all for sale.
When faced with evidence of corruption and sleaze by such Republican stalwarts as Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, conservatives have responded in three ways.
The first is to deny the accusations altogether. The second is to concede them, but insist the rot is confined to a few bad apples. The third, favored by the most independent-minded conservatives, is to declare that power has made Republicans just as corrupt as Democrats. The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson, articulating this latter response, wrote that the "closed, parasitic culture of convenience — with its revolving doors, front groups, pay-offs, expense-account comfort and ideological cover stories — is as essential to the way Republican Washington works, ten years after the [Republican] Revolution, as ever it was to Democratic Washington."
Sorry, but this won't do either. The influence of corporate lobbyists over government is not just as bad under the GOP as it ever was under Democrats. It's far worse.
A remarkable report by Jeffrey Birnbaum of the Washington Post shows that George W. Bush's presidency has ushered in a golden age for K Street lobbyists. Over the last five years, the number of registered lobbyists in the nation's capital has more than doubled. Starting salaries for lobbyists have shot up from $200,000 to $300,000, and the fees charged by some have doubled.
Birnbaum cited Hewlett-Packard, which nearly doubled its lobbying expenditures to $734,000, and won tax breaks worth millions. As HP's top lobbyist told Birnbaum, "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House."
Business is booming because there seemingly are no limits to what Republicans are willing to do on behalf of their constituents. Last summer, Bush signed a corporate tax bill that amounted to a series of naked giveaways. (One lobbyist involved confessed that the bill amounted to "a new level of sleaze.") The Post's Thomas Edsall reported that one powerful tax lobbyist collected a bushel of breaks for his clients and collected $8.69 million in fees for that one bill. No doubt it was money well spent.
Virtually every element of the Republican agenda has the effect — I suspect the intent, but I can't prove that — of enriching special interests. Bush has enacted five tax cuts, a Medicare prescription drug bill stuffed with billions in corporate subsidies, tort reform, bankruptcy restrictions, various tariffs and regulatory rollbacks enacted by administration appointees who frequently oversee the industries they once represented.
How is this any different than the arrangement that prevailed when Democrats controlled Washington? The Democratic agenda often ran directly against the interests of K Street. When President Clinton in 1993 raised taxes on the rich and clamped down on spending, there were no economic interests who stood to benefit. His healthcare plan benefited a few companies and enraged many more, who waged a successful fight to kill it. Only his passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement engendered much lobbying support, and even that provoked significant opposition from unions and some corporations that stood to lose from free trade.
Democrats, of course, are plenty compromised by their constituent interest groups. The difference is that their interest groups often disagree. Democrats receive support from business as well as labor, consumer groups, environmentalists and so on. Some Democrats are tools of business, others are tools of labor. But there's enough internal disagreement that the party is at least capable of trying to act in the broader interest.
Republicans, on the other hand, have no economic constituency besides business. As a result, the GOP has been completely captured by its component interests. Under previous GOP presidents, there was some shame attached to blatant corporate giveaways. But Republicans such as Bush, DeLay, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have a new ethos of total partisan warfare, in which the business lobby is their ironclad ally.
This ethos is emblemized by the "K Street Project," a GOP effort to force lobbying firms to donate to and hire Republicans exclusively. The party expects total loyalty from K Street, and it gives it in return. The old, cozy bipartisan lobbying culture that prevailed when Democrats held power was sleazy enough. But those Democrats never contemplated anything like this.
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-...la-news-columns
Jonathan Chait:
Hustling on K Street
# Under the Republicans, it's all for sale.
When faced with evidence of corruption and sleaze by such Republican stalwarts as Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, conservatives have responded in three ways.
The first is to deny the accusations altogether. The second is to concede them, but insist the rot is confined to a few bad apples. The third, favored by the most independent-minded conservatives, is to declare that power has made Republicans just as corrupt as Democrats. The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson, articulating this latter response, wrote that the "closed, parasitic culture of convenience — with its revolving doors, front groups, pay-offs, expense-account comfort and ideological cover stories — is as essential to the way Republican Washington works, ten years after the [Republican] Revolution, as ever it was to Democratic Washington."
Sorry, but this won't do either. The influence of corporate lobbyists over government is not just as bad under the GOP as it ever was under Democrats. It's far worse.
A remarkable report by Jeffrey Birnbaum of the Washington Post shows that George W. Bush's presidency has ushered in a golden age for K Street lobbyists. Over the last five years, the number of registered lobbyists in the nation's capital has more than doubled. Starting salaries for lobbyists have shot up from $200,000 to $300,000, and the fees charged by some have doubled.
Birnbaum cited Hewlett-Packard, which nearly doubled its lobbying expenditures to $734,000, and won tax breaks worth millions. As HP's top lobbyist told Birnbaum, "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House."
Business is booming because there seemingly are no limits to what Republicans are willing to do on behalf of their constituents. Last summer, Bush signed a corporate tax bill that amounted to a series of naked giveaways. (One lobbyist involved confessed that the bill amounted to "a new level of sleaze.") The Post's Thomas Edsall reported that one powerful tax lobbyist collected a bushel of breaks for his clients and collected $8.69 million in fees for that one bill. No doubt it was money well spent.
Virtually every element of the Republican agenda has the effect — I suspect the intent, but I can't prove that — of enriching special interests. Bush has enacted five tax cuts, a Medicare prescription drug bill stuffed with billions in corporate subsidies, tort reform, bankruptcy restrictions, various tariffs and regulatory rollbacks enacted by administration appointees who frequently oversee the industries they once represented.
How is this any different than the arrangement that prevailed when Democrats controlled Washington? The Democratic agenda often ran directly against the interests of K Street. When President Clinton in 1993 raised taxes on the rich and clamped down on spending, there were no economic interests who stood to benefit. His healthcare plan benefited a few companies and enraged many more, who waged a successful fight to kill it. Only his passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement engendered much lobbying support, and even that provoked significant opposition from unions and some corporations that stood to lose from free trade.
Democrats, of course, are plenty compromised by their constituent interest groups. The difference is that their interest groups often disagree. Democrats receive support from business as well as labor, consumer groups, environmentalists and so on. Some Democrats are tools of business, others are tools of labor. But there's enough internal disagreement that the party is at least capable of trying to act in the broader interest.
Republicans, on the other hand, have no economic constituency besides business. As a result, the GOP has been completely captured by its component interests. Under previous GOP presidents, there was some shame attached to blatant corporate giveaways. But Republicans such as Bush, DeLay, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have a new ethos of total partisan warfare, in which the business lobby is their ironclad ally.
This ethos is emblemized by the "K Street Project," a GOP effort to force lobbying firms to donate to and hire Republicans exclusively. The party expects total loyalty from K Street, and it gives it in return. The old, cozy bipartisan lobbying culture that prevailed when Democrats held power was sleazy enough. But those Democrats never contemplated anything like this.
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-...la-news-columns
This is what I've been saying.
The difference is in degree.
The difference is in degree.
But everybodyyyy dooooessss itttt....
It's how things work in DeeeeeCeeeeeeeeee.
Some here say that's a perfectly acceptable defense.
It's how things work in DeeeeeCeeeeeeeeee.
Some here say that's a perfectly acceptable defense.
Writer in Sources Case Laments Threat to Jail 2 Reporters
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: June 30, 2005
Robert D. Novak, the columnist whose unmasking of a C.I.A. operative prompted an investigation of who had given her name to him and others, expressed disappointment yesterday that two other reporters faced going to jail for not cooperating in the case.
Robert D. Novak, who unmasked Valerie Plame of the C.I.A.
But Mr. Novak, in an appearance on "Inside Politics" on CNN and in a subsequent telephone interview, once again refused to answer questions about what contact, if any, he had had with the federal prosecutor conducting the investigation or about what extent he might have cooperated in the case.
He did say in the phone interview, as he had on CNN, that neither of the two reporters - Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine - faced going to jail because of anything that he might have done or not done.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
Mr. Novak has chosen to maintain his silence about his role in the inquiry despite persistent demands from some journalists, as well as others in the Washington establishment, that he at least disclose whether he had received a subpoena in the case and, if so, how he had responded to it.
That pressure appeared to intensify this week after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on behalf of Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, who had appealed a judge's order that they be jailed for refusing to testify about who might have disclosed the name of the operative, Valerie Plame, to them.
Mr. Novak's comments about Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller were by far his most extensive on the case, and his appearance on "Inside Politics" was the first time that CNN colleagues had pressed him intensely on the air for information about his role.
Although Mr. Cooper wrote about Ms. Plame in an article two years ago, after Mr. Novak had disclosed her name in his syndicated column, Ms. Miller never did. A special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is investigating whether people in the Bush administration broke a law meant to protect intelligence agents when they told reporters about Ms. Plame.
As part of the inquiry, several senior administration officials have testified before a grand jury.
In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.
But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.
"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful."
Robert S. Strauss, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who said he had been a friend of Mr. Novak's for 40 years, agreed, in an interview, that Mr. Novak could probably say more than he had.
"I think he would certainly help out a lot of people if he told his side of the story," said Mr. Strauss, a lawyer for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington law firm. "Maybe he likes the controversy."
A moment later, Mr. Strauss softened slightly, saying, "He may have some good reason for not doing it."
Gina Lubrano, reader representative for The San Diego Union-Tribune, which publishes Mr. Novak's columns on Sundays, said she found it baffling that someone who demanded answers to tough questions as part of his job could be so reticent when the spotlight turned on him.
"As a journalist, he would find that response unacceptable from others," Ms. Lubrano said.
In a column published yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, William Safire, a former columnist for the paper, urged Mr. Novak to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
In response, Mr. Novak said he would "write a column when the case is closed" and "tell everything I know."
Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.
"We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment," Mr. Cruickshank said. "But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending."
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
The developments in the inquiry occur at a time of transition for Mr. Novak. On Saturday, CNN broadcast the last program of "Capital Gang," the 16-year-old talk show on which Mr. Novak had been a commentator and a co-executive producer.
In canceling the program, Jonathan Klein, president of CNN domestic operations, cited the desire to devote more time to reporting news. Mr. Klein had offered a similar rationale in canceling "Crossfire," another program that featured clashing pundits, on which Mr. Novak had been a panelist.
In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak said of Mr. Klein's explanation, "I don't understand it, but he's the boss."
Mr. Novak has hardly hidden from public view in the midst of the Plame case. On Thursday, he traveled to Mr. Hunt's house for a party for the end of "Capital Gang." Among those on hand were Mr. Strauss, a guest on the program's pilot episode, as well as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Despite his former colleague's protestations, Mr. Hunt said he believed that Mr. Novak was showing some strain.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30novak.html
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: June 30, 2005
Robert D. Novak, the columnist whose unmasking of a C.I.A. operative prompted an investigation of who had given her name to him and others, expressed disappointment yesterday that two other reporters faced going to jail for not cooperating in the case.
Robert D. Novak, who unmasked Valerie Plame of the C.I.A.
But Mr. Novak, in an appearance on "Inside Politics" on CNN and in a subsequent telephone interview, once again refused to answer questions about what contact, if any, he had had with the federal prosecutor conducting the investigation or about what extent he might have cooperated in the case.
He did say in the phone interview, as he had on CNN, that neither of the two reporters - Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine - faced going to jail because of anything that he might have done or not done.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
Mr. Novak has chosen to maintain his silence about his role in the inquiry despite persistent demands from some journalists, as well as others in the Washington establishment, that he at least disclose whether he had received a subpoena in the case and, if so, how he had responded to it.
That pressure appeared to intensify this week after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on behalf of Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, who had appealed a judge's order that they be jailed for refusing to testify about who might have disclosed the name of the operative, Valerie Plame, to them.
Mr. Novak's comments about Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller were by far his most extensive on the case, and his appearance on "Inside Politics" was the first time that CNN colleagues had pressed him intensely on the air for information about his role.
Although Mr. Cooper wrote about Ms. Plame in an article two years ago, after Mr. Novak had disclosed her name in his syndicated column, Ms. Miller never did. A special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is investigating whether people in the Bush administration broke a law meant to protect intelligence agents when they told reporters about Ms. Plame.
As part of the inquiry, several senior administration officials have testified before a grand jury.
In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.
But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.
"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful."
Robert S. Strauss, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who said he had been a friend of Mr. Novak's for 40 years, agreed, in an interview, that Mr. Novak could probably say more than he had.
"I think he would certainly help out a lot of people if he told his side of the story," said Mr. Strauss, a lawyer for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington law firm. "Maybe he likes the controversy."
A moment later, Mr. Strauss softened slightly, saying, "He may have some good reason for not doing it."
Gina Lubrano, reader representative for The San Diego Union-Tribune, which publishes Mr. Novak's columns on Sundays, said she found it baffling that someone who demanded answers to tough questions as part of his job could be so reticent when the spotlight turned on him.
"As a journalist, he would find that response unacceptable from others," Ms. Lubrano said.
In a column published yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, William Safire, a former columnist for the paper, urged Mr. Novak to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
In response, Mr. Novak said he would "write a column when the case is closed" and "tell everything I know."
Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.
"We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment," Mr. Cruickshank said. "But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending."
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
The developments in the inquiry occur at a time of transition for Mr. Novak. On Saturday, CNN broadcast the last program of "Capital Gang," the 16-year-old talk show on which Mr. Novak had been a commentator and a co-executive producer.
In canceling the program, Jonathan Klein, president of CNN domestic operations, cited the desire to devote more time to reporting news. Mr. Klein had offered a similar rationale in canceling "Crossfire," another program that featured clashing pundits, on which Mr. Novak had been a panelist.
In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak said of Mr. Klein's explanation, "I don't understand it, but he's the boss."
Mr. Novak has hardly hidden from public view in the midst of the Plame case. On Thursday, he traveled to Mr. Hunt's house for a party for the end of "Capital Gang." Among those on hand were Mr. Strauss, a guest on the program's pilot episode, as well as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Despite his former colleague's protestations, Mr. Hunt said he believed that Mr. Novak was showing some strain.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30novak.html
QUOTE(davisął @ Jun 30 2005, 07:49 AM)
Writer in Sources Case Laments Threat to Jail 2 Reporters
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: June 30, 2005
Robert D. Novak, the columnist whose unmasking of a C.I.A. operative prompted an investigation of who had given her name to him and others, expressed disappointment yesterday that two other reporters faced going to jail for not cooperating in the case.
Robert D. Novak, who unmasked Valerie Plame of the C.I.A.
But Mr. Novak, in an appearance on "Inside Politics" on CNN and in a subsequent telephone interview, once again refused to answer questions about what contact, if any, he had had with the federal prosecutor conducting the investigation or about what extent he might have cooperated in the case.
He did say in the phone interview, as he had on CNN, that neither of the two reporters - Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine - faced going to jail because of anything that he might have done or not done.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
Mr. Novak has chosen to maintain his silence about his role in the inquiry despite persistent demands from some journalists, as well as others in the Washington establishment, that he at least disclose whether he had received a subpoena in the case and, if so, how he had responded to it.
That pressure appeared to intensify this week after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on behalf of Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, who had appealed a judge's order that they be jailed for refusing to testify about who might have disclosed the name of the operative, Valerie Plame, to them.
Mr. Novak's comments about Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller were by far his most extensive on the case, and his appearance on "Inside Politics" was the first time that CNN colleagues had pressed him intensely on the air for information about his role.
Although Mr. Cooper wrote about Ms. Plame in an article two years ago, after Mr. Novak had disclosed her name in his syndicated column, Ms. Miller never did. A special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is investigating whether people in the Bush administration broke a law meant to protect intelligence agents when they told reporters about Ms. Plame.
As part of the inquiry, several senior administration officials have testified before a grand jury.
In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.
But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.
"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful."
Robert S. Strauss, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who said he had been a friend of Mr. Novak's for 40 years, agreed, in an interview, that Mr. Novak could probably say more than he had.
"I think he would certainly help out a lot of people if he told his side of the story," said Mr. Strauss, a lawyer for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington law firm. "Maybe he likes the controversy."
A moment later, Mr. Strauss softened slightly, saying, "He may have some good reason for not doing it."
Gina Lubrano, reader representative for The San Diego Union-Tribune, which publishes Mr. Novak's columns on Sundays, said she found it baffling that someone who demanded answers to tough questions as part of his job could be so reticent when the spotlight turned on him.
"As a journalist, he would find that response unacceptable from others," Ms. Lubrano said.
In a column published yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, William Safire, a former columnist for the paper, urged Mr. Novak to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
In response, Mr. Novak said he would "write a column when the case is closed" and "tell everything I know."
Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.
"We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment," Mr. Cruickshank said. "But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending."
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
The developments in the inquiry occur at a time of transition for Mr. Novak. On Saturday, CNN broadcast the last program of "Capital Gang," the 16-year-old talk show on which Mr. Novak had been a commentator and a co-executive producer.
In canceling the program, Jonathan Klein, president of CNN domestic operations, cited the desire to devote more time to reporting news. Mr. Klein had offered a similar rationale in canceling "Crossfire," another program that featured clashing pundits, on which Mr. Novak had been a panelist.
In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak said of Mr. Klein's explanation, "I don't understand it, but he's the boss."
Mr. Novak has hardly hidden from public view in the midst of the Plame case. On Thursday, he traveled to Mr. Hunt's house for a party for the end of "Capital Gang." Among those on hand were Mr. Strauss, a guest on the program's pilot episode, as well as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Despite his former colleague's protestations, Mr. Hunt said he believed that Mr. Novak was showing some strain.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30novak.html
[right][snapback]98514[/snapback][/right]
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: June 30, 2005
Robert D. Novak, the columnist whose unmasking of a C.I.A. operative prompted an investigation of who had given her name to him and others, expressed disappointment yesterday that two other reporters faced going to jail for not cooperating in the case.
Robert D. Novak, who unmasked Valerie Plame of the C.I.A.
But Mr. Novak, in an appearance on "Inside Politics" on CNN and in a subsequent telephone interview, once again refused to answer questions about what contact, if any, he had had with the federal prosecutor conducting the investigation or about what extent he might have cooperated in the case.
He did say in the phone interview, as he had on CNN, that neither of the two reporters - Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine - faced going to jail because of anything that he might have done or not done.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
Mr. Novak has chosen to maintain his silence about his role in the inquiry despite persistent demands from some journalists, as well as others in the Washington establishment, that he at least disclose whether he had received a subpoena in the case and, if so, how he had responded to it.
That pressure appeared to intensify this week after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on behalf of Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, who had appealed a judge's order that they be jailed for refusing to testify about who might have disclosed the name of the operative, Valerie Plame, to them.
Mr. Novak's comments about Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller were by far his most extensive on the case, and his appearance on "Inside Politics" was the first time that CNN colleagues had pressed him intensely on the air for information about his role.
Although Mr. Cooper wrote about Ms. Plame in an article two years ago, after Mr. Novak had disclosed her name in his syndicated column, Ms. Miller never did. A special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is investigating whether people in the Bush administration broke a law meant to protect intelligence agents when they told reporters about Ms. Plame.
As part of the inquiry, several senior administration officials have testified before a grand jury.
In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.
But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.
"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful."
Robert S. Strauss, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who said he had been a friend of Mr. Novak's for 40 years, agreed, in an interview, that Mr. Novak could probably say more than he had.
"I think he would certainly help out a lot of people if he told his side of the story," said Mr. Strauss, a lawyer for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington law firm. "Maybe he likes the controversy."
A moment later, Mr. Strauss softened slightly, saying, "He may have some good reason for not doing it."
Gina Lubrano, reader representative for The San Diego Union-Tribune, which publishes Mr. Novak's columns on Sundays, said she found it baffling that someone who demanded answers to tough questions as part of his job could be so reticent when the spotlight turned on him.
"As a journalist, he would find that response unacceptable from others," Ms. Lubrano said.
In a column published yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, William Safire, a former columnist for the paper, urged Mr. Novak to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
In response, Mr. Novak said he would "write a column when the case is closed" and "tell everything I know."
Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.
"We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment," Mr. Cruickshank said. "But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending."
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
The developments in the inquiry occur at a time of transition for Mr. Novak. On Saturday, CNN broadcast the last program of "Capital Gang," the 16-year-old talk show on which Mr. Novak had been a commentator and a co-executive producer.
In canceling the program, Jonathan Klein, president of CNN domestic operations, cited the desire to devote more time to reporting news. Mr. Klein had offered a similar rationale in canceling "Crossfire," another program that featured clashing pundits, on which Mr. Novak had been a panelist.
In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak said of Mr. Klein's explanation, "I don't understand it, but he's the boss."
Mr. Novak has hardly hidden from public view in the midst of the Plame case. On Thursday, he traveled to Mr. Hunt's house for a party for the end of "Capital Gang." Among those on hand were Mr. Strauss, a guest on the program's pilot episode, as well as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Despite his former colleague's protestations, Mr. Hunt said he believed that Mr. Novak was showing some strain.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30novak.html
[right][snapback]98514[/snapback][/right]
Novak need to be bent over the bench and have some Karl Rove justice LIBERALY applied.
Fargin dirtbag.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
<snip>
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
Lowlife maggot exposes all of Plame's former foreign contacts and he just blows it off like it's no big deal.
"If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness," said Mr. Novak, a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and a CNN contributor. "Some people seem to think that."
<snip>
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Mr. Novak, 74, said that reverberations from the case had had no effect on his ability to do his work as a columnist and commentator.
"I spend no time on this controversy," he said in the interview. "I either do as well or as badly as I would otherwise."
Lowlife maggot exposes all of Plame's former foreign contacts and he just blows it off like it's no big deal.
QUOTE
Mr. Hunt said he believed that Mr. Novak was showing some strain.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
"Wouldn't you?" Mr. Hunt asked.
I would hope so.
I find it amazing how fast Republicans forgot the ethics issue was what got them into congress. Remember the Contract for America? They don't.
Democrats Challenge GOP on Ethics
New Ads Target Six Republicans
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 6, 2005; Page A04
Democrats took their first formal step yesterday toward trying to nationalize next year's midterm House elections around the issue of ethics, buying ads in the local papers of six Republican lawmakers calling on them to "start working for us" instead of special interests.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $36,000 on the ads -- a virtually meaningless sum, by itself -- but calls it the beginning of a campaign to fuel an anti-incumbent fever like the one that swept its party out in 1994.
"There's a question about the conduct and the culture that goes beyond the individuals," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the committee's chairman. "The speaker's gavel is supposed to open the people's house, not the auction house."
Even White House officials have begun to fret about the large number of senior Republicans being tied to questionable travel and relationships with lobbyists. On Friday, federal agents raided the San Diego area home of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, one of the ad targets. The search followed news reports that he had sold a house to a defense contractor, who immediately put it back up for sale and took a huge loss.
Republicans contend that Democrats are making the mistake the GOP did in 1998, when the party made its main message about President Bill Clinton instead of a positive agenda. Republicans say Democrats face numerous ethical issues of their own. Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, asserted that Democrats are "stepping into their own Venus' flytrap."
The ads are customized for each district, with a large photo of a lawmaker accompanied by critical headlines. The one in the Fort Bend Sun, which circulates in the House majority leader's suburban Houston district, asks, "What's Happened to Tom DeLay?"
An ad in two Ohio papers singles out the House Administration Committee chairman by blaring: "Bob Ney's work in Congress is generating headlines . . . on his ties to lobbyists, his foreign trips, and his fight for Indian casinos."
Political consultants agree that a message needs to be repeated so that voters can absorb it. But Democrats have struggled to recruit candidates and hope the ads will help generate an aura of vulnerability around some GOP leaders.
Carl Forti, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the ads "a waste of money." "Clearly, their intention is more to draw headlines inside the Beltway than to move votes," Forti said.
Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman, said Democrats are "relying on a strategy of smear tactics and personal attacks in a feeble attempt to win back seats."
And Tom DeLay nailing Jim Wright for the same behavior was nothing but a strategy of smear tactics and personal attacks? Listen Shannon, you ignorant shithead, (DeLay's spokesman) GFY you no good, piece of crap hypocrite. Now tell us how your criminal boss is a fine, upstanding Christian.
The other targets are House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (Calif.), Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.) and Rep. Charles H. Taylor (N.C.).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070501410.html
Democrats Challenge GOP on Ethics
New Ads Target Six Republicans
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 6, 2005; Page A04
Democrats took their first formal step yesterday toward trying to nationalize next year's midterm House elections around the issue of ethics, buying ads in the local papers of six Republican lawmakers calling on them to "start working for us" instead of special interests.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $36,000 on the ads -- a virtually meaningless sum, by itself -- but calls it the beginning of a campaign to fuel an anti-incumbent fever like the one that swept its party out in 1994.
"There's a question about the conduct and the culture that goes beyond the individuals," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the committee's chairman. "The speaker's gavel is supposed to open the people's house, not the auction house."
Even White House officials have begun to fret about the large number of senior Republicans being tied to questionable travel and relationships with lobbyists. On Friday, federal agents raided the San Diego area home of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, one of the ad targets. The search followed news reports that he had sold a house to a defense contractor, who immediately put it back up for sale and took a huge loss.
Republicans contend that Democrats are making the mistake the GOP did in 1998, when the party made its main message about President Bill Clinton instead of a positive agenda. Republicans say Democrats face numerous ethical issues of their own. Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, asserted that Democrats are "stepping into their own Venus' flytrap."
The ads are customized for each district, with a large photo of a lawmaker accompanied by critical headlines. The one in the Fort Bend Sun, which circulates in the House majority leader's suburban Houston district, asks, "What's Happened to Tom DeLay?"
An ad in two Ohio papers singles out the House Administration Committee chairman by blaring: "Bob Ney's work in Congress is generating headlines . . . on his ties to lobbyists, his foreign trips, and his fight for Indian casinos."
Political consultants agree that a message needs to be repeated so that voters can absorb it. But Democrats have struggled to recruit candidates and hope the ads will help generate an aura of vulnerability around some GOP leaders.
Carl Forti, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the ads "a waste of money." "Clearly, their intention is more to draw headlines inside the Beltway than to move votes," Forti said.
Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman, said Democrats are "relying on a strategy of smear tactics and personal attacks in a feeble attempt to win back seats."
And Tom DeLay nailing Jim Wright for the same behavior was nothing but a strategy of smear tactics and personal attacks? Listen Shannon, you ignorant shithead, (DeLay's spokesman) GFY you no good, piece of crap hypocrite. Now tell us how your criminal boss is a fine, upstanding Christian.
The other targets are House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (Calif.), Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.) and Rep. Charles H. Taylor (N.C.).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070501410.html
QUOTE(davisął @ Jul 6 2005, 05:05 AM)
I find it amazing how fast Republicans forgot the ethics issue was what got them into congress. Remember the Contract for America? They don't.
[right][snapback]100593[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]100593[/snapback][/right]
I wonder if we can sue DeLouse for breach of said contract.
...and what the eff does DeLouse need a spokesman for, who pays him and what hell is DeLouse doing so damned important besides gouging folks for campaign contributions that he can't speak for himself...Tom DeLay's spokesperson...really! What a maggot…
All stressed out?
Sometimes it helps to think of happy scenes---Maybe a pastoral field, a field with a babbling brook. You’re there on a lovely summer’s day---holding someone’s head under the water. Now you’re letting them up for a second, then blam! Back into the freezing water!
Over and over again!
There. Feel better?
Expressions from Hallmark---- the Comedy club
We need to elect the politicians who will be like George Washington …. namely
1) who will fight for the honor of the Constitution…
2) have the good of the country as their desire for public office … and
3) not want a dynasty
Sometimes it helps to think of happy scenes---Maybe a pastoral field, a field with a babbling brook. You’re there on a lovely summer’s day---holding someone’s head under the water. Now you’re letting them up for a second, then blam! Back into the freezing water!
Over and over again!
There. Feel better?
Expressions from Hallmark---- the Comedy club
We need to elect the politicians who will be like George Washington …. namely
1) who will fight for the honor of the Constitution…
2) have the good of the country as their desire for public office … and
3) not want a dynasty
This is just wrong. gut and amend? What the hell?? I call it bait and switch.
Senate committee revives same-sex marriage bill
Leno uses 'gut and amend' technique to change contents of cohort's fisheries legislation
Christian Berthelsen, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Sacramento -- A state Senate committee voted Tuesday to approve a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, reviving legislation declared "dead for the year" just last month after it failed to pass out of the lower house.
The effort comes in the face of two previous failed attempts to pass the bill in the Legislature, a voter-approved ballot measure recognizing marriage as between only a man and a woman, and sentiment that the gay marriage movement galvanized support for President Bush in the presidential election last year.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he hoped passage through two Senate committees and the Senate floor would give it the momentum it needed to win approval in the Assembly this summer.
Resuscitation of the bill renewed emotional debate on the most contentious social policy issue in the Capitol this year.
Leno and other legislators who supported the measure say that it ranks as the top civil rights battle of the decade and that recognition of same-sex marriage would correct discriminatory policies in the issuance of marriage license, consideration of tax status, financial and medical benefits, and a range of other issues.
State Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, acknowledged that the majority of voters opposed gay marriage when they approved Proposition 22 five years ago but said: "The people have spoken. They have spoken. But people aren't always right."
Randy Thomasson, the president of the Campaign for Children and Families, the lead opponent of the bill, testified that the Legislature was not the proper venue to legalize same-sex marriage because California voters outlawed it. Rather, he said legalization should be put to voters once more in the form of a ballot measure.
"The courts have already said you cannot create same-sex marriage in this Legislature," he testified. "It must be done by a vote of the people."
The hallway outside the committee hearing room was jammed with hundreds of opponents of the measure. The only other witness to testify against the bill was a woman who said "we are going to see the king of kings and lord of lords" if it is passed.
The woman, who gave her name as Susan Farrell in her testimony but left immediately afterward and could not be interviewed, said she was surprised to talk to the committee as long as she did and feared she would miss getting home in time to make dinner for her husband but that she felt strongly about the issue.
"I'm mommy!" she shrieked. "There's not two mommies to my children!"
Because the Assembly bill failed to pass out of its house of origin by the statutory deadline this year, the legislation was thought to be finished until next year, when new bills can be introduced again. Sen. Carole Migden, D- San Francisco, a supporter of the bill, termed it "dead for the year" when it fell four votes short of the 41 necessary last month.
But through a parliamentary maneuver known as a "gut and amend," Leno borrowed a fellow legislator's bill regarding marine fisheries research that was pending in the Senate, stripped its contents and inserted the language of his failed Assembly bill. The new version is not materially different than the version that died in the Assembly.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-1 along party lines to pass the bill, with Democrats in favor and the lone Republican who was present opposed. The votes gave it the minimum needed to move on.
Leno said he believed it would garner enough votes in a subsequent Senate hearing and on the Senate floor but acknowledged he still needed to pick up three votes in the Assembly, where it must return and pass before it can be sent to the governor.
Should it get that far, it would present a high-profile and difficult choice for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has presented himself as a social moderate but has also said the courts should decide the issue.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGQNDN3E51.DTL
Senate committee revives same-sex marriage bill
Leno uses 'gut and amend' technique to change contents of cohort's fisheries legislation
Christian Berthelsen, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Sacramento -- A state Senate committee voted Tuesday to approve a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, reviving legislation declared "dead for the year" just last month after it failed to pass out of the lower house.
The effort comes in the face of two previous failed attempts to pass the bill in the Legislature, a voter-approved ballot measure recognizing marriage as between only a man and a woman, and sentiment that the gay marriage movement galvanized support for President Bush in the presidential election last year.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he hoped passage through two Senate committees and the Senate floor would give it the momentum it needed to win approval in the Assembly this summer.
Resuscitation of the bill renewed emotional debate on the most contentious social policy issue in the Capitol this year.
Leno and other legislators who supported the measure say that it ranks as the top civil rights battle of the decade and that recognition of same-sex marriage would correct discriminatory policies in the issuance of marriage license, consideration of tax status, financial and medical benefits, and a range of other issues.
State Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, acknowledged that the majority of voters opposed gay marriage when they approved Proposition 22 five years ago but said: "The people have spoken. They have spoken. But people aren't always right."
Randy Thomasson, the president of the Campaign for Children and Families, the lead opponent of the bill, testified that the Legislature was not the proper venue to legalize same-sex marriage because California voters outlawed it. Rather, he said legalization should be put to voters once more in the form of a ballot measure.
"The courts have already said you cannot create same-sex marriage in this Legislature," he testified. "It must be done by a vote of the people."
The hallway outside the committee hearing room was jammed with hundreds of opponents of the measure. The only other witness to testify against the bill was a woman who said "we are going to see the king of kings and lord of lords" if it is passed.
The woman, who gave her name as Susan Farrell in her testimony but left immediately afterward and could not be interviewed, said she was surprised to talk to the committee as long as she did and feared she would miss getting home in time to make dinner for her husband but that she felt strongly about the issue.
"I'm mommy!" she shrieked. "There's not two mommies to my children!"
Because the Assembly bill failed to pass out of its house of origin by the statutory deadline this year, the legislation was thought to be finished until next year, when new bills can be introduced again. Sen. Carole Migden, D- San Francisco, a supporter of the bill, termed it "dead for the year" when it fell four votes short of the 41 necessary last month.
But through a parliamentary maneuver known as a "gut and amend," Leno borrowed a fellow legislator's bill regarding marine fisheries research that was pending in the Senate, stripped its contents and inserted the language of his failed Assembly bill. The new version is not materially different than the version that died in the Assembly.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-1 along party lines to pass the bill, with Democrats in favor and the lone Republican who was present opposed. The votes gave it the minimum needed to move on.
Leno said he believed it would garner enough votes in a subsequent Senate hearing and on the Senate floor but acknowledged he still needed to pick up three votes in the Assembly, where it must return and pass before it can be sent to the governor.
Should it get that far, it would present a high-profile and difficult choice for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has presented himself as a social moderate but has also said the courts should decide the issue.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGQNDN3E51.DTL
I guess ethics and politics is the best place for this rant.
Well that slug Limbaugh was doing what he does best today, proving dittoheads are dumb as rocks. He cited the projection than the deficit will be 350 billion this year in stead of last years record of a 100 billion more as a validation of Bush economics.
This he deduced was proof that GW’s voodoo economics tax cuts produced more tax revenue (it really was because wall street pumped the bubble back up and the increase came form tax on that inflated value), all of which proves, according to this witch doctor bent on destroying democracy, not only the rightness of Bush Inc’s domestic fiscal policies but some it evolved into the innocence of Rove because the Democrats were angry at Bush because his tax cuts worked and were framing Rove to get Bush; what a moron, and more so anyone who believes one word he has to say. What a tortured chain of logic devoid of significant facts and ignorant of cause effect relationships.
First, Clinton’s deficits averaged only 40 billion per year, one tenth of last years Bush debacle and one eighth of this projection, which BTW is likely a propagandist lie by an Administration in trouble. They did the same thing last year hiding about 150 billion from the public until the end of the year.
But the main point is and was and should now be, Reagannomics and Bushes mirror of it produce world record deficits. Citing a 100 billion less than last years that is still eight times higher than the Clinton average is proof of nothing but that supply side doesn’t reduce deficits, it increased them in record amounts under Reagan and now under Bush. Stockman was right.
BTW why did Clinton manage low deficits against the debacles of Reagan, Bush41 and now his lackluster chip? Because Clintion was a better manager? Not likely, it was because Bush 41 and his Congress bit the bullet and restored some of the taxes Reagan cuts.
It amazes me how folks can set and think Limbaugh is any thing but a lying political huckster making 30 mil a year by gulling middle calss folks into voting to cut their throat economically based emotional hype and a mass of lies, all so guys in his bracket ran have an extra 8 plus mil a year.
Well that slug Limbaugh was doing what he does best today, proving dittoheads are dumb as rocks. He cited the projection than the deficit will be 350 billion this year in stead of last years record of a 100 billion more as a validation of Bush economics.
This he deduced was proof that GW’s voodoo economics tax cuts produced more tax revenue (it really was because wall street pumped the bubble back up and the increase came form tax on that inflated value), all of which proves, according to this witch doctor bent on destroying democracy, not only the rightness of Bush Inc’s domestic fiscal policies but some it evolved into the innocence of Rove because the Democrats were angry at Bush because his tax cuts worked and were framing Rove to get Bush; what a moron, and more so anyone who believes one word he has to say. What a tortured chain of logic devoid of significant facts and ignorant of cause effect relationships.
First, Clinton’s deficits averaged only 40 billion per year, one tenth of last years Bush debacle and one eighth of this projection, which BTW is likely a propagandist lie by an Administration in trouble. They did the same thing last year hiding about 150 billion from the public until the end of the year.
But the main point is and was and should now be, Reagannomics and Bushes mirror of it produce world record deficits. Citing a 100 billion less than last years that is still eight times higher than the Clinton average is proof of nothing but that supply side doesn’t reduce deficits, it increased them in record amounts under Reagan and now under Bush. Stockman was right.
BTW why did Clinton manage low deficits against the debacles of Reagan, Bush41 and now his lackluster chip? Because Clintion was a better manager? Not likely, it was because Bush 41 and his Congress bit the bullet and restored some of the taxes Reagan cuts.
It amazes me how folks can set and think Limbaugh is any thing but a lying political huckster making 30 mil a year by gulling middle calss folks into voting to cut their throat economically based emotional hype and a mass of lies, all so guys in his bracket ran have an extra 8 plus mil a year.
its because they are koolaide guzzling glutons.
of course todays h(ins)annity rant was nearly identical.
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Jul 13 2005, 06:06 PM)
Citing a 100 billion less than last years that is still eight times higher than the Clinton average is proof of nothing but that supply side doesn’t reduce deficits, it increased them in record amounts under Reagan and now under Bush. Stockman was right.
[right][snapback]103572[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]103572[/snapback][/right]
Indeed.
I'll wait a few months and observe with interest the "correction" to todays figures that the 'librul' media will bury on page D32.
Why would this year be any different then the last 5?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.