04.25.05
Click on the graphic to view the Web of Hypocrisy at GOP Bloggers. Matt Margolis writes:
The Democrats’ smear campaign against Tom DeLay shows no signs of stopping. The Democrats, unable to win elections on ideas, have resorted to partisan attacks in order to oust Republican Party Leadership. It’s not going to work. They are accusing him of ethics violations for doing things that are common among congressmen.
With all the so-called scandals, liberals are just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. It’s comedy.
Meanwhile, in their own backyards…
Also see David Limbaugh’s column on filibusters and sore losers.
102 Comments
La Shawn:
Dems have opened a pandora’s box and reinforced an old truth:
“Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.
Does any serious person believe that De Lay’s trip to Russia in 1998 was a vacation? De Lay was helping to open the door for oil-related business with Russia - this has procuced innumerable jobs for Americans and others.
In contrast, Rep Tubbs has produced only destruction of an industry in Puerto Rico.
Comment by Frank — 04.25.05 @ 2:06 pm
“It’s not going to work. They are accusing him of ethics violations for doing things that are common among congressmen.”
Its common that when the ethics committe your party controls admonishes one, then you turn around and purge that committee? woah!
Comment by actus — 04.25.05 @ 2:20 pm
[…] are accusing him of ethics violations for doing things that are common among congressmen. Barber: With all the so-called scandals, liberals are just throwing things aga […]
Pingback by Civil Commotion » Matt Margolis and LaShawn Barber come out … — 04.25.05 @ 2:51 pm
They are accusing him of ethics violations for doing things that are common among congressmen.
What I quoted should be of real concern to everyone.
Too bad real reform won’t come out of this.
Politics as usual.
Comment by DarkStar — 04.25.05 @ 3:00 pm
The REAL Reason Dems Don’t Want To Move Forward On Tom DeLay
Matt at GOP Bloggers has a GREAT graphic that pretty much tells the story of why the left is so interested in hammering at Tom DeLay, yet refusing to allow the House Ethics Committee meet and discuss it:
The reason they don’t wish to move forward a…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 04.25.05 @ 3:35 pm
Again, the other side points fingers to justify their own shady behavior.
Why cant liberals and conservatives come together to demand more ethical leaders?
Why is it ok if the other side did it?
Two wrongs make nothing right. So while I accept that there are some shady things going on in my party, why cant you?
Comment by Candyce — 04.25.05 @ 3:37 pm
Candyce, ummm, maybe because there’s a lot more of it from the shady-gray relativists than from those who tend to see black and white. Also we’re willing to hammer our own, while people like cHillary rallies to defend a crooked supporter. Whaddya think?
Comment by Andy — 04.25.05 @ 4:35 pm
I really like Drudge. He was one of the first to recognize that readers do not need to be spoon-fed. They are smart enough to use their own common sense in deciding what’s legitimate, and what’s not.
With Drudge, I feel like I have a choice—if I want to investigate something further, I can. Or, if I just want to have a good laugh,—-which I always do— I can leave it at that.
Drudge assumes the readers are intelligent enough to weed out what they feel is valid, or not.
Put the power in the hands of the readers and let them decide.
Unlike the mainstream media, which feels the need to babysit and shield readers.
Comment by Glamchild — 04.25.05 @ 4:57 pm
Andy,
When has a GOP member come out against their own?
Comment by Candyce — 04.25.05 @ 6:42 pm
I’d like all of these corporate-representing idiots to be brought out of the closets.
One of the reasons I was for Campaign Finance Reform. Conservatives can should “free speech violation” all they want, but these corporations have WAY too much influences over ALL politicians, republican vs. democrat.
If DeLay is going to have to be the whipping boy to start the process of weeding out all of these corporate rear-kissers, then so be it. I hope Nancy Pelosi goes with him.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.25.05 @ 7:26 pm
I can’t think of any GOP member found guilty of shady dealings within the last few years, other than that Northeast dude that remodeled his summer cabin. Gingrich and several others found themselves in disfavor for moral failings that were otherwise legal.
OTOH, quite a few DNC members were charged and/or guilty of one thing or another (voter fraud in St Louis & Milwaukee, influence peddling/conflict of interest in New Jersey, Chicago, San Deigo, Detroit, Philadelphia and the list goes on).
Yet I’m hard pressed to think of any public condemnation since Clinton. Avoidance until the issue blows over yes, rebuke no. And even then, it usually gets spun as some sort of entrapment or conservative vendetta against the member. Altho Lieberman took a lot of heat for being moderate instead of toeing the line.
Your problem is that you try to spin it as “everyone does it in equal measure”. The reality is that when one’s ideology is BAMN, then you’re going to find more lapses, than you will in someone who conciously tries to do the right thing.
Comment by Andy — 04.25.05 @ 7:28 pm
“Tom DeLay, yet refusing to allow the House Ethics Committee meet and discuss it:”
they’re stalling the ethics committe because DeLay recently packed it with his people.
Comment by actus — 04.25.05 @ 8:43 pm
Candyce: “Two wrongs make nothing right. So while I accept that there are some shady things going on in my party, why cant you?”
Because what DeLay has done is not illegal and not an ethics violation. Pointing out that Democrats do the same thing is just displaying their hypocrisy. It shows that the Democrats are practicing partisan politics and don’t really care about ethics but do care about removing Republicans by issuing false claims of ethics violations.
When the MSM in their own bias falls for fallacious claims it needs to be revealed.
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 04.25.05 @ 8:59 pm
As I’ve been saying….
….politicians are hypocrites. (Hat tip to LaShawn Barber.)
Trackback by Media Lies — 04.25.05 @ 9:01 pm
What is wrong with this picture?
- Democrats want Tom DeLay investigated.
- Democrats are blocking the investigation of Delay.
Here is a marvel indeed!
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 04.25.05 @ 9:36 pm
“I can’t think of any GOP member found guilty of shady dealings within the last few years, other than that Northeast dude that remodeled his summer cabin.”
The college republicans were investigated for their shady fundraisings. And there was the robo-dialer up in new england. Off the top of my head.
“What is wrong with this picture?”
That DeLay investigation would be a whitewash outside of the normal procedure?
Comment by actus — 04.25.05 @ 9:52 pm
Right now,
The best thing tom delay can do is walk out of his office, walk down the street to FBI HQ, and turn himself in for the crimes he has committed. He would really improve things by insisting he not stand trial but go directly to serving life in prison (One of those super max) with-out paroll.
The crimes of delay are too numerous to count.
Comment by Magnum Serpentine — 04.25.05 @ 11:24 pm
“The college republicans were investigated for their shady fundraisings. And there was the robo-dialer up in new england. Off the top of my head.”
What college republicans? The group that sold Affirmative Action cookies? Oh yeah, that’s shady alright to sell cookies for a quarter to blacks and 50 cents to whites. Even so, I hardly think that some college republican group takes marhing orders directly from GOP HQ.
Honestly, I’ve never heard about this robo-dialer scandal? Tell me more.
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 10:57 am
Democrat hypocrites scramble to cover their own ethics problems
Now that Tom DeLay is under attack in the press (while any actual hearings are stalled) Democrats in Congress are…
Trackback by JackLewis.net — 04.26.05 @ 11:34 am
I can forgive democrats a lot, but not for having written all the Trojan Horses and most of the spam. That is over the top.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.26.05 @ 1:35 pm
Darkstar and Actus,
The point with the comment, “They are accusing him of ethics violations for doing things that are common among congressmen” is that is it really “ethics violations”.
Answer this please. Is it unethical to employ your family members in your company? Is it unethical to pay family members for services rendered in your company.
The point in showing the web of hypocrasy is that there are many who engage in the practice. To call it ethical violations of Tom Delay Actup and SS man goes to show the PATTERN of allegations and accusations that the left continues daily with no sign of showing up in the playing field of ideas. Maybe one day?
Comment by Baklava — 04.26.05 @ 3:06 pm
Mike M.
Because of your comment “If DeLay is going to have to be the whipping boy to start the process of weeding out all of these corporate rear-kissers, then so be it. I hope Nancy Pelosi goes with him.”
I’d like you to answer what was unethical also (post above).
Did you know I own my own company and pay my children to do work? Let’s have an investigation….
Comment by Baklava — 04.26.05 @ 3:08 pm
Dennis Hastert, House Speaker, is on record stating that they are ready for the investigation to go forward so that DeLay has an opportunity to defend himself. Tom DeLay is also on record as wanting the investigation to go forward.
It hasn’t becuase House Dems won’t let it go forward. They are content to play this out in the media because it has a greater political effect.
LB is right, these are legal practices that many congressmen/women employ. Don’t like em, pressure your representative to enact legislation to make it illegal.
Combine this with the Senate Fillibuster and are we seeing a vast left-wing conspiracy? ;>
Comment by Chris Roberts — 04.26.05 @ 3:09 pm
“Answer this please. Is it unethical to employ your family members in your company? Is it unethical to pay family members for services rendered in your company.”
It just stinks of nepotism. I don’t think that’s charged as an ethical violation. Perhaps his family members did earn those thousands of dollars.
But that’s not delay’s only problem.
Comment by actus — 04.26.05 @ 3:24 pm
“It hasn’t becuase House Dems won’t let it go forward. They are content to play this out in the media because it has a greater political effect.”
They also don’t trust an ethics committee that tom delay recently restructured.
Comment by actus — 04.26.05 @ 3:24 pm
Boy you are judgmental Actus. I certainly hope you don’t own your own company and feel the wrath one day of people that employ your philosophy.
You are so tightly wound that you would call “paying for services rendered “to your family members “who performed services” as nepotism.
Heaven forbid. I pay my daughters for work they do for my company. Should I go to hell Actus?
Can I ask you Actus if it is possible that you could moderate your opinion on this topic or am I wasting my time. In my opinion your view is extreme. And who should control company owner’s ability to pay people they know for services rendered? Is this still a free country or has this country moved SO FAR LEFT that the government has to get involved in each and every company’s hiring decisions?????????
Comment by Baklava — 04.26.05 @ 3:54 pm
Baklava, I employ both of my sons in the family business because they do a better job than non-family members. I guess that makes me a evil sponsor of nepotism too. I’m so ashamed.
Comment by RedBeard — 04.26.05 @ 4:48 pm
“Boy you are judgmental Actus. I certainly hope you don’t own your own company and feel the wrath one day of people that employ your philosophy.”
Part of the problem is that “in my own company” I’m not taking money for political contributions for my campaign. Thats’ the worry: is that money which was supposed to be a political contribution for a campaign becomes effectively a bribe to a private person.
“You are so tightly wound that you would call “paying for services rendered “to your family members “who performed services†as nepotism.”
It just stinks of nepotism. That person could actually be qualified for hte job. I’m not a stickler for “you always have to hire the most qualified” though. I don’t think the laws say this, and they shouldn’t.
But I think your ‘company’ analogy breaks down in the context of a political campaign where a politician isn’t supposed to be accepting gifts for himself or his family.
Comment by actus — 04.26.05 @ 4:50 pm
You are uniquely a person who misunderstands.
A campaign requires resources of people performing services rendered. You can’t have things done for you for free just because it’s a campaign Actus. The Media won’t run your ads for free. And there are campaign advisors and Public relations consultants and people who manage the campaign. Yes there are lots of us who “volunteer” for campaigns like I have for Tom McClintock and George Allen and others, but if someone close to you is performing services rendered and it’s common for families to do this, are you really holding yourself to a higher standard by standing on your soap box and hollering about this so-called sin? Or could it be possibly that you aren’t any better than anyone else and just have a set of double-standards or that you erect hurdles due to misconceptions and misinformation.
But yeah. Anyways. Call for Nancy Pelosi to step down as loud as you are for Delay. That’ll be progress right?
Comment by Baklava — 04.26.05 @ 5:10 pm
Actus, if it stinks of nepotism, then what should we call it when family members get dragged into the public’s eye simply because one of them is a politician?
Seems to me that if they “must” get dragged into by fanciful ideas of a public right to know, then perhaps it’s only fair that they get a piece of the action by working for said member.
That said, there’s a difference in working for wages and accepting bribes. I’d classify renting out the Lincoln bedroom as bribery.
On the other hand, you haven’t been forthcoming in condemning the democrats who hire their family, rather you just harp on Delay and insinuate that he’s actully guilty of something bigger than “nepotism”. So why don’t you come on out and enlighten us as to Delay’s greater problem/sin?
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 5:17 pm
Baklava,
Pay for play, my friend. Pay for play.
You say us liberals (actus, in particular) “uniquely misunderstand.”
Do you not worry that the SAME greedy corporations looking out for their own interests are PAYING OFF our government officials for favorable votes in the House and Senate? Votes that could drastically affect our country?
It’s not a faerie tale. These things do happen.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.26.05 @ 5:18 pm
Mike M, at least you recognize that Pelosi needs to go down if Delay does. But again, that’s why the investigation isn’t going forward cause the dems know the stink would stick to them even more so.
Better to let Delay dangle under a cloud, thus distracting him from fully focusing on the “moral” mandate we voters sent the conservatives to do.
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 5:26 pm
To the extent it happens is because the government doesn’t treat everybody equally under the law.
The government needs to stop growing as it has done every year for over 50 years. Then.
1) Revamp the tax code taking 99% of it away and treating everybody fairly with a flat tax with one large exemption for yourself and your dependant.
2) Revamp all of the corporate taxes on the city, county and state and federal level so that there isn’t any reason for companies to try to curry favor with politicians. Microsoft had zero lobbyists a while ago. Look what that got them. All 50 states and the federal government had a lawsuit against Microsoft. Now Microsoft has wisened up and now they have lobbyists. Why because of this big government (left leaning) that all companies have to try to work with now.
While you want to put all the blame on the corporations Actus and Mike M., I represent to you that the government has moved so far left over the years and the Republicans are only a continuation of moving the government left just slower (Medicare Prescription Drug program, huge Education budget increases, federal expenditures on stem cell research), that corporations are only trying to receive some of that largesse.
Why did CA have to spend 3 billion of State money to do stem cell research? Because the stupid voters voted for it. Arnold backed that proposition. Why? Nobody knows. There was already private investment in stem cell research that has far exceeded what CA or the federal government is spending.
Someday somebody is going to accuse that business of having received kickbacks. Could be Actus or Mike M. that makes that accusation. They’ll even blame it on Arnold maybe. Woo hoo. Can’t wait for that debate…
Comment by Baklava — 04.26.05 @ 5:37 pm
“Seems to me that if they “must†get dragged into by fanciful ideas of a public right to know, then perhaps it’s only fair that they get a piece of the action by working for said member.”
I think that’s an odd rationalization.
“While you want to put all the blame on the corporations Actus and Mike M”
I don’t know about mike m, but I think that any problems that are caused by money in politics come from, well, the people with money in politics.
Comment by actus — 04.26.05 @ 6:11 pm
You think it’s an odd rationalization? Then tell me what the justification for MSM articles on family members in the 1st place? If family members have to be dragged thru the media machine, then why shouldn’t they get actively involved?
In some countries, actually many, the media doesn’t even discuss a politician’s family. IOW it’s all about the politician and his/her objectives. Never a human-interest story unless they put themselves in the story. Meanwhile our media constantly monitors the family in hopes of a story. Granted it’s a “vicious” circle as candidates feel compelled to trot out their family. Remember the brouhaha over Deaniac’s wife?
PS, I’m still waiting on the rest of the story regarding Delay’s big problem that you alluded to, or are you going to ignore yet another challenge to your smear campaign?
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 6:35 pm
Looks like ABC’s World News Tonite just did a fairly balanced report on Delay’s so-called ethics problem and pointed out that Pelosi and other Dems have a bigger problem of hypocisy should they continue to carry this out to its logical conclusion.
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 6:43 pm
” If family members have to be dragged thru the media machine, then why shouldn’t they get actively involved?”
Its just odd to think that reporting on Hillary or Chelsea is what justifies them working in the administration.
“PS, I’m still waiting on the rest of the story regarding Delay’s big problem that you alluded to, or are you going to ignore yet another challenge to your smear campaign?”
I think his bigger problem is that there is an intinerary for a trip in his name with the billing address of a lobbyist. I do find it odd to believe that he wasn’t aware of abramoff and the tribes.
Comment by actus — 04.26.05 @ 8:57 pm
Working in the administration?? As in on the public payroll?? Whatever!!!
This is a bigger problem than a junket sponsored by the Aspen Institute or Ripon Educational Fund?
http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/
“…There is no legal prohibition to prevent a lobbyist from serving on the board of these organizations, and in some cases lobbyists may encourage a client to contribute to the non-profit. In some cases, serving on a non-profit’s board permits the lobbyist to participate in the sponsored event or travel for Members of Congress.
[SNIP]
Members of Congress have received over $16 million ($16,168,014) during the last five years traveling around the world at the expense of private organizations.
This includes 605 Members of Congress who made 5,410 trips. Democrat Members took 3,025 trips, Republican Members took 2,375 trips, others took 10 trips.”
Given the distribution of GOP vs DNC members of congress over the last 5 years according to my handy-dandy Political Balance of Power (1789-present) spreadsheet, the average Donk took 12 trips vs 9 trips for each GOP member.
Yeah, right!!! Plain to see Delay has a big problem - not enough trips under the “Fairness Doctrine”. Any more insinuations?
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 9:52 pm
PS. you wanna talk ethics, how about that neat little real estate deal in Chappa-my-rear that basically gets we-the-people to pay for cHillary’s multi-million $$$ homestead.
BTW, what is it with the Clintons and real estate anyway??
Comment by Andy — 04.26.05 @ 9:56 pm
Looks like the jackasses are starting to fling their own manure just typical of a bunch of left-wing liberals who oppse the will of the people who voted DeLay into office what should be done is to wait for the next election and throw the bums out every one
Comment by firebird — 04.26.05 @ 11:44 pm
“Yeah, right!!! Plain to see Delay has a big problem - not enough trips under the “Fairness Doctrineâ€. Any more insinuations?”
Didn’t you notice? its not a problem to have a non-profit pay for a trip. Its a problem to have a lobbyist pay for it. Specially one who is scamming his clients.
Comment by actus — 04.27.05 @ 9:09 am
“Web of Hypocracy” - Democrat hypocracy, that is …
(courtesy of LaShawnBarber.com) Remember the infamous graphic published by the New York Times last year during election season that purported to link mysterious conservative 527 groups, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and rich conservative financiers?
Trackback by Mike's Noise — 04.27.05 @ 2:03 pm
Didn’t you notice that many non-profits have lobbyists on their board and as a result, the lobbyists get to travel on these junkets.
Didn’t you notice that lobbyist will also direct their clients to contribute to the non-profits?
Easy to see that just sitting next to each other uninterupted during long overseas flights is a good day’s work for the lobbyists.
So what difference does it make if the lobbyist paid for lunch or airfare on his dime or via non-profit? Different technique, same effect, so what.
Or are you implying that $16 million coming from non-profits have a different value than $16 mil coming from lobbyists?
If so, that’s new math to me. Back when we ran a business services gig in Berlin, their money was all the same to us, even those clutching a fistful of tax-payer dough.
As for scamming their clients, you mean it’s actually illegal to double-dip your clients whenever you can? I thot that was Basic Lawyer 101. Seems to me that your “devil” Abramhoff was able to serve his client in one direction and when he suceeded, he then picked up new clients on the backhaul. Last I heard, Jesse and Sharpton were masters of that gig, just ask NASCAR and other multinational corporations.
Then you say you find it odd that Delay didn’t know about the “tribes”. Why? When did you first hear of it? And why should Delay know about it? As an US congress member, Delay would generally have next to nothing to do with State politics, as far as lobbyists go, unless it’s a topic that requires federal intervention.
Comment by Andy — 04.27.05 @ 6:38 pm
“So what difference does it make if the lobbyist paid for lunch or airfare on his dime or via non-profit? Different technique, same effect, so what.”
One is against the rules, the other isn’t?
“As for scamming their clients, you mean it’s actually illegal to double-dip your clients whenever you can? I thot that was Basic Lawyer 101. Seems to me that your “devil†Abramhoff was able to serve his client in one direction and when he suceeded, he then picked up new clients on the backhaul.”
You’re aware of his handling of the tribes right? you know he’s been fired, and is being investigated for this? there’s a grand jury.
“Why? When did you first hear of it? And why should Delay know about it? ”
because deLay and abramoff and reed work together. I think abramoff even used to work for deLay. and the tribes were funding some deLay projects, via abramoff.
But if the congressman wants to play clueless, he’ll play clueless.
Comment by actus — 04.27.05 @ 10:43 pm
Good on ya, Actus. But it took you several comments to finally get around to spelling your issues out. Next time spit it out, instead of insinuating.
In any case, now Delay can present his case to the ethics committee and let the chips fall where they lay. Now that the MSM/DNC have had their fun watching Delay squirm, they’re now crossing their fingers and hoping that he gets “acquited”.
Comment by Andy — 04.27.05 @ 11:58 pm
The Democrat leadership didn’t like the new ethics rules in the House, and sat around pouting about it like petulant children, refusing to do their jobs. Well, now that the rules have reverted to their original form, we’ll see if the children will continue their tantrum. Judging by Nancy Pelosi’s whining yesterday, complaining about getting exactly what the Dems said they wanted, the answer is yes, they will continue to resist any active ethics committee work. I wonder why. Do I hear the sound of Dem skeletons rattling in that closet?
Comment by RedBeard — 04.28.05 @ 8:24 am
“In any case, now Delay can present his case to the ethics committee and let the chips fall where they lay.”
Maybe. He has changed the makeup of the ethics committee to purge the GOP members who voted against his rule change. And they did change the staffing rules from having a bipartisan staff picked by both parties to having a partisan staff picked by the majority. Thats the staff that conducts investigations.
well see.
Comment by actus — 04.28.05 @ 9:37 am
Actus, the committe is evenly split - quit spinning. Delay can do all he wants to change the GOP makeup. It ain’t gonna affect the DNC side. Either they will indict, thus opening the door to their closet of skeletons (h/t Redbeard). Or they will quietly drop the issue. Eitherway it is the DNC’s call.
Comment by Andy — 04.28.05 @ 12:06 pm
Actus, if you want a prime example of hypocrisy
How about:
“ Senators Byron Dorgan, John Kerry and Richard Durbin pulled a fast one last week on their congressional colleagues. They tried to bury forever documents alleging that senior government officials tried to transform portions of the IRS and the Justice Department into a goon squad for attacking political enemies and aiding political friends.
Naturally, they didn’t declare their intentions openly. Instead, Sen. Dorgan attached an innocent looking amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that will fund government operations after September 30. The last-minute amendment read:
Read the rest at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154770,00.html
Yeah, yeah, Fox is the wingnut noise machine, but the facts still stand even if the MSM/DNC won’t talk about it.
Comment by Andy — 04.28.05 @ 3:03 pm
“Actus, the committe is evenly split - quit spinning.”
The staff is not the same as the members who are on the committe. The staff used to be hired on a bipartisan fashion. It is not anymore. It is now hired by the majority.
The staff are the people who investigate.
Comment by actus — 04.28.05 @ 9:50 pm
And the staff will have final say? Ok.
Comment by Andy — 04.29.05 @ 1:10 am
“And the staff will have final say? Ok. ”
The staff will do the investigative work. Thats the meat and potatoes of the ethics problem. I don’t think the minority members have subpoena power.
Comment by actus — 04.29.05 @ 7:17 am
IOW, you’re making excuses for the inevitable acquittal? Keep on spin’n
Comment by Andy — 04.29.05 @ 8:09 am
I hate to seem like I’m piling on here, but it really does seem like excuse-making to say that the staff is going to hamstring the Dems here. Are we to believe that this staff is superior in rank to the committee members? Who works for whom?
No, this staffing thing is purely a red herring thrown out there by Nancy Peloso and her bunch. They can’t whine and moan about the “unfair” new ethics rules any longer, since those rules have reverted to the form preferred by Democrats, so they’re off on this staff tangent.
Bottom line, the thing the stone-throwers in the Dem leadership desperately want to steer us away from, is that they live in very brittle glass houses.
This will be really interesting as it plays out.
Comment by RedBeard — 04.29.05 @ 8:52 am
“IOW, you’re making excuses for the inevitable acquittal? Keep on spin’n”
You do know that this is a very different ethics committee than the one that admonished DeLay 3 times last year right?
Excuses or Reasons, there has to be something to how DeLay recently reshaped the ethics committee. Something tells me it wasn’t in a direction that was opposite to his interests.
Comment by actus — 04.29.05 @ 9:44 am
To the victor goes the spoils IAW precedent and long established rules. When your team gets back in the saddle, don’t let the burrs buck ya.
Comment by Andy — 04.29.05 @ 4:04 pm
“To the victor goes the spoils IAW precedent and long established rules. When your team gets back in the saddle, don’t let the burrs buck ya”
I don’t get it. the right has been in charge of the house for 10 years, but only now did they gut the ethics committee. I guess its up to the dems to win it back and make it non-partisan?
Comment by actus — 04.30.05 @ 10:58 am
Took me a while to respond; I was doubled over with uncontrollable fits of laughter as I contemplated the idea of the Dems being non-partisan.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.01.05 @ 8:38 am
Redbeard, I know what you mean
Comment by Andy — 05.01.05 @ 9:36 am
“I was doubled over with uncontrollable fits of laughter as I contemplated the idea of the Dems being non-partisan.”
Thats exactly what I’m getting at. under the dems and the GOP the ethics committee hiring was bipartisan. Now its not. Are the dems expected to, once they win it back, go back to making it bipartisan or are they expected to do the new thing that DeLay has done?
Comment by actus — 05.01.05 @ 2:25 pm
LOLLOL. You mean like it’s bi-partisan only when the donks say so?
And you want it back when? LOLLOL
Comment by Andy — 05.02.05 @ 8:26 pm
“LOLLOL. You mean like it’s bi-partisan only when the donks say so?”
I mean like it was bipartisan when both parties had to agree on the make-up of staff of the committee. I can’t think of any definition of bipartisan that would leave this situation out, and if you don’t agree with this you have much more fundamental problems with the truth.
Note: it was bipartisan under the post 1994 GOP house as well. This isn’t a democrat only thing.
Comment by actus — 05.02.05 @ 8:51 pm
Non-partisan indeed. Looks like the delay Delay campaign is backfiring.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-SC & Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss are gonna get burned for taking money from Abrahmoff. Looks like Abrahmoff is a bi-party corruptor.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050503/ap_on_go_co/delay_lobbyist
And you gotta love the way the trouble just always seem to find the donks. It’s all so-o-o-o unfair
“City Hall officials ordered the city’s top water boss, Donald Tomczak, to marshal his political army of city workers for Mayor Daley, Congressman Rahm Emanuel and other politicians, according to a federal court document released Monday and other sources.”
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-hired03.html
I heard the DNC leadership has recently taken to praying for God to help them. Sounds good except they forgot the part about taking God’s name in vain and resulting mockery of God. Thus the adage, be careful what you pray for.
Unless the DNC comes to their senses, there may well be no furure for the democratic party with another taking its place.
Comment by Andy — 05.03.05 @ 10:03 am
“Non-partisan indeed.”
So long as you understand what i’m talking about in terms of the committee staffs
“Looks like the delay Delay campaign is backfiring.”
Everyone who touched abramoff deserves the can. that guy was scum
Comment by actus — 05.03.05 @ 11:46 am
The real problem with Delay is that, as laid out by Robert Novak:
“DeLay has concentrated on changing the internal structure of the House, which was shaped by Democrats during 40 years in power. Over the last five or six years, he has concentrated on altering the Appropriations Committee’s mentality and culture. The appropriators no longer constitute a virtual third party, aimed at winning over more than 400 out of 435 members on appropriations bills. DeLay still has a long way to go, but the system is becoming less congenial to old-fashioned Democratic spending.
DeLay also is committed to the “Fair Tax” plan of fellow Texan Leo Linbeck, which would eliminate the federal income tax in its entirety and replace it with a national sales tax. While President Bush is engaged in a laborious process starting with a bipartisan committee headed by two former senators, DeLay has made up his mind and wants to bring his radical proposal to the House floor next year.
DeLay has made mistakes, though many errors — such as playing golf overseas on a special interest’s dime — hardly warrant the death penalty. Former aides and associates have entered Washington’s bipartisan culture of lobbying greed, though DeLay cannot be held responsible for them. He has been rude to reporters, lobbyists and even colleagues, though that is a common failing among strong leaders.
The overriding point is that DeLay is the most important Republican leader in Congress. That is why George W. Bush was pictured with him on newspaper front pages all over America Wednesday morning. During the day, when RSC leaders met with the president, Rep. Pence expressed his organization’s appreciation for that gesture. DeLay figures to be around longer than the conventional wisdom imagines.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_2_05_RN.html
Hence the attempts by any means necessary to derail Delay, even at the risk of the spotlight being turned back on the MSM/DNC of greater ethics violations.
Somehow, the dems feel that their 40+ year legacy and internal rules are sacred. WRONG!!! We’re entitled to change the rules as much as they have, that’s the beauty of a dynamic republic. To toss out or reform policies that don’t work. That’s the mandate voters gave the GOP. End of story.
I and like-minded conservatives/libertarians urge the GOP to grab away at the 3rd rail and short-circuit the socialistic damages caused by the MSM/DNC. If the dems want to have a say, they need to come to the table with realistic proposals and be a part of the solution or risk being marginalized, like the Sunnis on 30 Jan 05.
Comment by Andy — 05.03.05 @ 11:56 am
You still haven’t told us how the committee staff will prevent the proper operation of the committee.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.03.05 @ 2:20 pm
“You still haven’t told us how the committee staff will prevent the proper operation of the committee.”
The committee staff does the investigating.
Comment by actus — 05.03.05 @ 2:29 pm
Ok, but how will that prevent the proper operation of the committee?
Are you saying that the staff will not investigate properly? Will the 50% of the committee that is Democrat simply lie down and let an improper investigation go forward? If these are your conclusions, then on what do you base them?
Comment by RedBeard — 05.03.05 @ 2:42 pm
“Ok, but how will that prevent the proper operation of the committee?”
They won’t be as good.
” Will the 50% of the committee that is Democrat simply lie down and let an improper investigation go forward?”
Hopefully not. Hopefully they’ll fight to get a bipartisan staff.
Comment by actus — 05.03.05 @ 3:39 pm
As partisan as the donks are, I doubt they’ll take anything lying down if they thot they could. On second thot, they are fighting back with tooth & nail. That Delay rolled back some of their rules in spite of their protestations only shows they’re losing power, which is as it should be.
The dems ruled the roost for 40 long years and are now in decline. Don’t fight the inevitable, Actus, just get used to the new boss
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 2:46 am
“That Delay rolled back some of their rules in spite of their protestations only shows they’re losing power, which is as it should be.”
Those rules were in place during the GOP congress too. Why are you identifying them with democrats?
Comment by actus — 05.04.05 @ 8:42 am
What a load of pretzel logic. Rules get changed when the majority congress feels it’s time and advantageous to change it. In the case of judicial/cabinent nominees, does it make any sense for a republican congress to change procedure rules when Clinton was nominating idiots like Jocelyn Elder? IIRC, it was a democratic majority that introduced the litmus test to derail RWR and Papa Bush nominees.
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 9:55 am
“What a load of pretzel logic. ”
Whats pretzel logic? The rules were for a bipartisan ethics staff untill the end of 2004. That includes a GOP and a dem congress. Now I’m curious if this means that our hopes of getting a bipartisan staff depend on the dems winning congress back, or if they can just go ahead and make the committee staff partisan like DeLay just did.
I’m assuming the litmus test is the anti-choice issue. Thats not really a procedural rule. Thats a simple substantive vote for or against people.
Comment by actus — 05.04.05 @ 10:00 am
Come now, when have we ever really had a truly bi-partisan anything. Not since you were probably knee-high to a pup? To wit, taking the fight to the enemy or to deal with some other near universal outrage. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of give & take to the degree of political strength.
BPiNO. Bi-Partisanship in Name Only, happens when either party needs to reach across the aisle to help push their vision thru. When either party comes to the table with a majority, the minority party generally hopes for enough face-saving concessions so they can run home and say it was bi-partisan.
For most of our lives (referring to the LBC community), the left of center have been doing the taking, while the right of center have been doing the giving. Nowadays, it’s the right of center doing the taking; and somehow that’s an outrage to the MSM/DNC, as if all of their past takings were sacrosanct.
Payback hurts, eh?
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 3:14 pm
Actus, as a nonpartisan & concerned activist, this must really break your heart.
“House Republicans called Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi a hypocrite yesterday for not demanding investigations into new ethics questions that have arisen about the travel of her fellow Democrats.
“She demanded an investigation into [Majority Leader] Tom DeLay, but hasn’t said a word about these Democrats who have done the same thing,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. “If she doesn’t call for investigations into her fellow Democrats, then it’s clear she’s being a hypocrite.”
Republicans are wondering why the California representative won’t ask for investigations into Democratic Reps. Norm Dicks of Washington, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, all of whom face questions about accepting travel paid for by lobbyists.
“As we expressed in earlier letters, Madame Leader, it appears more and more that your repeated calls for an investigation of Mr. DeLay are more driven by politics than by any real concern for the House rules,” Mr. McHenry, with two other Republicans, wrote in a letter to Mrs. Pelosi yesterday.”
Read more and weep at http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050504-122024-4420r
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 5:03 pm
“Come now, when have we ever really had a truly bi-partisan anything. ”
When the staff of the committe has to be agreed on by both parties, that fits the definition to a T.
“Actus, as a nonpartisan & concerned activist, this must really break your heart.”
Yes. I’m trembling with fear.
Comment by actus — 05.04.05 @ 5:43 pm
Okay, just you sit back, relax and enjoy your koolaid [virtual pat on the head]. When you’ve awaken from your nap, you’ll see all is well in the union.
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 6:06 pm
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason,” so wrote Thomas Paine almost 225 years ago.
Sounds familar in this congressional season?
Comment by Andy — 05.04.05 @ 10:23 pm
“Sounds familar in this congressional season? ”
Certainly. It took years to win enough people over to the credit card company side of the bankruptcy bill.
Comment by actus — 05.04.05 @ 10:40 pm
You guys still at it?
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 8:06 am
Switching subjects again? Why should you or I pay for others who welch on their debt. Oh the inhumanity.
Comment by Andy — 05.05.05 @ 10:02 am
Because the gubmint is compassionate and caring and understands that people who melt their credit cards are poor innocent victims of the banking industry.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 10:10 am
“Switching subjects again? Why should you or I pay for others who welch on their debt. Oh the inhumanity. ”
You give me a quote to thomas paine and ask me about switching subjects? Why should you or I pay for the irresponsible lending of credit card companies? Do you really not believe in bankruptcy at all?
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 10:32 am
Got the shoe on the wrong foot there, Actus. It’s irresponsible BORROWING, unless the banks are holding people at gunpoint and ordering them to spend more than they make.
We need personal responsibility, not nanny-state pampering.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 11:01 am
“It’s irresponsible BORROWING, unless the banks are holding people at gunpoint and ordering them to spend more than they make.”
No. But there are two people making the decision to lend. Why is only 1 person responsible for the outcome of that decision?
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 11:39 am
If you go to the shoe store with your 11D feet and the clerk tries to sell you a pair of 12EEE shoes, would you buy them? And if you do buy them, whose fault would that be?
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 11:58 am
“If you go to the shoe store with your 11D feet and the clerk tries to sell you a pair of 12EEE shoes, would you buy them? And if you do buy them, whose fault would that be? ”
I have no idea how that is relevant to the asymetries of information that are at play in determining the creditworthyness of someone. Ie, shoe sizes and creditworthyness are not the same.
I had an acquaintance that ran up bills he couldn’t pay, and then he declared bankruptcy. harhser bankruptcy laws wouldn’t have prevented him from borrowing to that point. Looser bankruptcy laws would have prevented someone from lending him to that point.
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 12:31 pm
Good grief! How much looser do you want those laws? Bankruptcy should be an ordeal, not a picnic.
This is about personal responsibility. Don’t borrow if you can’t afford it. Just like buying the right size shoe, it isn’t a difficult concept, but folks need to accept responsibility instead of looking to blame someone else for their lousy choices in life.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 1:32 pm
“Good grief! How much looser do you want those laws? Bankruptcy should be an ordeal, not a picnic. ”
Who said its a picnic?
“This is about personal responsibility. Don’t borrow if you can’t afford it”
I agree with responsibility. Don’t lend if you can’t lose it. I’ve had friends ask me for money before, and I’ve turned them down.
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 2:11 pm
Blame the lender? Talk about turning the argument inside-out!
If my business extends credit to a customer who finds himself unable to pay on time, should I just blame myself for opening the account and write it off? No, I’m going to go after the deadbeat, and hope that lax bankruptcy laws don’t allow him to slip out from under his responsibility. Remember, he owes ME, not the other way around.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 2:54 pm
Do you ever turn anyone down for credit?
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 3:11 pm
Of course. Banks turn down credit applications too. We also make some bad decisions, and sell to people we shouldn’t, just as banks can make bad decisions. Offering credit is far from an exact science.
Interesting as that tangent might be, it has nothing to do with the responsibility of the borrower to follow through on his obligations.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 3:23 pm
“Interesting as that tangent might be, it has nothing to do with the responsibility of the borrower to follow through on his obligations.”
In looking at an efficient allocation of resources, it is no way tangent to approach a transaction from both sides.
Bankruptcy is about the morality of both parties. I have yet heard a case that it is easy. It is easier for businesses to do it though: they can just dissolve.
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 3:53 pm
Personally, I think there is some blame for the bankruptcy explosion to lay at the feet of the lenders. Or at least some of them.
The biggest problem I had with the recent bankruptcy reform was that the credit card and lending companies weren’t given any restrictions on interest rates and predatory lending. While it has not been a problem for me, plenty of people have been sucked in by a introductory rate that suddenly becomes very high, OR rates that hike for the slightest and seemingly arbitrary reasons.
I once had a credit card that raised my APR because I paid my bills too well!
Anyway, now limits have been placed on the consumer side of the problem, but I don’t forsee the credit companies lowering some of their rates in response. Sadly, I didn’t see both sides of the problem getting tackled, so I am not very surprised.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 05.05.05 @ 4:13 pm
Some lenders, and some retailers, are engaged in smarmy business practices. That’s without doubt. But I can’t blame the lenders any more than I can blame the Home Shopping Network or the local “Buy here - pay here” used car lot. Everyone is trying to entice buyers, whether they’re selling tangible products or renting money. The fast buck operators are often shameless, but when has that not been the case?
BUT… the bottom line still has to be the assumption of responsibility by the consumer to handle his or her finances. Can’t afford the car? Don’t sign the deal. Can’t afford the miracle cookware? Put away the credit card. Can’t repay the loan? Don’t borrow.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 4:30 pm
” Everyone is trying to entice buyers, whether they’re selling tangible products or renting money.”
We don’t have to blame anyone if everyone is doing it. Nor do we need blame to regulate.
“Can’t afford the miracle cookware? Put away the credit card. ”
Part of the problem is also balloning rates. Rates that change. Do you think borrowers have similar economic forecasting abilities to lenders? Who is a more efficient predictor of interest rates? Me or MBNA?
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 4:39 pm
Why would a borrower sign up for a loan with a flaky rate structure? Here we are, back to the borrower making bad choices and failing at his responsibility.
READ THE CONTRACT. Never let a credit card run past the due date, and avoid all the interest. If unable to afford something without keeping a balance on the credit card, DON’T BUY IT.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 5:08 pm
“If unable to afford something without keeping a balance on the credit card, DON’T BUY IT.”
So your solution is to not have any borrowing. sounds great!
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 5:12 pm
How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion, Actus? I said that borrowing to buy things on a credit card, and carrying over a balance that involves a high interest rate, is a bad idea. Borrowing to buy a house, if one can afford the payments and the rate is favorable, is a good idea. Other purchases requiring borrowing may or may not be wise.
It’s up to the individual to make wise choices.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.05.05 @ 5:35 pm
“I said that borrowing to buy things on a credit card, and carrying over a balance that involves a high interest rate, is a bad idea.”
When you said “if you can’t afford something without a balance” I thought that meant without borrowing. Sorry that I didn’t ge you meant just credit cards.
So basically you just think that there ought not to be any credit level borrowing? Ok. I’d say the best way to achieve that would be to have laxer bankruptcy laws. Because then the lenders would stop lending.
Comment by actus — 05.05.05 @ 5:50 pm
SCSI/Redbeard, good points.
This latest reform is a start, hopefully the lending rates will be the next focus for reform.
That’s why I avoid credit cards like the plague. Generally speaking, if I can’t afford it now, I don’t need it. It’s been 10 years and I and my wallet feel fine.
Comment by Andy — 05.05.05 @ 6:42 pm
I see we’ve run this topic right off the front page. 101 posts, and Actus is still finding ways to be contrary.
Hey Actus! Are you by chance on the college debating squad?
Comment by RedBeard — 05.06.05 @ 12:26 pm