Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to Was Your Vote a Protest Against the Congressional Culture of Corruption?
On second thought . . .
Earmarks are also corrupt when they enrich lobbyists and campaign contributors, although perhaps not as flagrantly corrupt as when the one doing the earmarking turns a profit from his or her own legislation.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 15, 2006 at 4:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, Professor, I'll give you that one
Earmarks are not necessarily corruption (except, in cases like Reid's bridge across the Colorado, when the earmarker stands to profit personally from them). But how is it that Nancy P can have any credibility condemning Republican earmarking when she does it herself? That's the issue with her.
Blogflogger chimed in about Murtha. S/he needs to follow the Professor's wisdom and read the links. He turned down the bribe, all right - by saying he wasn't interested "at this time," an enormous difference from the right answer, to the effect of "get thee behind me." And neither answer excuses his breach of House ethics laws in failing to report the proffered bribe. Further, a reading of the other link re Murtha reveals much more corruption beyond that.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Do you even READ your links?
The LA Times article (that you link to) says specifically "Pelosi has not been linked to any impropriety. And not all the federal funding Pelosi boasts about came from earmarks."
This is not corruption, you moonbat! This is what Congressmen & women are supposed to do; make sure that their citizens, (who pay among the highest federal taxes in the country, I might add) get their share of federal funds for projects. This is not a road project that improves property values, making Frist several million dollars; this is not a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska; these are projects that benefit the citizens of her district. Since there is no indication in your diatribe that Pelosi or any of her family or friends PROFITED from these earmarks, it is NOT "corruption".
One man's pork is another's worthy cause. Once again, look at your own link:
"Among the biggest earmarks identified by the group (Taxpayers for Common Sense) were $5.6 million for the UC San Francisco Neurology department and $4 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Both were inserted into the 2006 defense spending bill."
Oh, yeah, spending on medical research is a BIG boondoggle. Especially neurology. Maybe UCSF can find a cure for your cranial-rectal insertion disease! And God forbid that those terrorist-loving, hate-the-military-and-every-one-in-it commie pinko fags on the left actually add amendments to INCREASE military spending! Whassamatter, didn't Haliburton get a piece of this particular pie?
Yes, Pelosi has railed against earmarks (especially the anonymous kind Republicans are so famous for) and campaign finance reform. But since they do exist in the here and now, should she play by rules that don't exist yet? Or should she benefit her constituency?
You logic is specious, your arguments consist mainly of regurgitated GOP (government of pedophiles) talking points and loaded, slanted words & phrases (like "pork" and "lavished"). Come back to me when you have some original, reasoned arguments.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on November 14, 2006 at 1:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Old news
Aw, cmon Blogflogger! You expect the neocons to bring up anything CURRENT? They're still crying over Ted Kennedy's drunk driving accident 40 years ago!
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on November 14, 2006 at 1:10 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight - Pathetic attempts to try to make Dems look as bad as...
... Republicans. Sorry, but it just doesn't fly.
From the LA Times article, “Pelosi has not been linked to any impropriety. And not all the federal funding Pelosi boasts about came from earmarks.”. So, if we don’t’ have any other way for federal funds to be appropriated to state projects, where was Pelosi wrong? We need to modify the system, not criticize those who claimed federal funds for their constituents. – Yep, Pelosi’s efforts smell just like Ted Steven’s of Alaska and his $131 million bridge to nowhere, right? “Among the biggest earmarks identified by the group were $5.6 million for the UC San Francisco neurology department and $4 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Both were inserted into the 2006 defense spending bill.” So Pelosi requesting funds for a hospital and for a U.S Naval shipyard are bogus needs, eh?
Harry Reid, exonerated 26 years ago… need I say more. Give it a break.
Murtha turned down a bribe 26 years ago. Keep digging. We’re all overwhelmed by this ugly news. Personally, I’ve got a razor blade at my wrist. (How about learning to be a good loser?)
posted by
blogflogger
on November 13, 2006 at 11:08 PM
| link to this | reply
All right, I'll grant you Margaret Thatcher is a dyed in the wool
conservative, but I"d rather have Imelda Marcos than her, or even Leona Helmsley. Just because someone is a woman, does not make them more fit to be in power, either. So I will grant you that.
But if we're going to get started on the subject of left v. right corruption, my diner will burn. and I have to go.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche is on a roll!
You are arguing the wrong case. The case at hand is the claim that Congressional reform is at hand when those who claim to be the reformers are corrupt.
Conservatives would be honored to have a woman in power. Secretary Rice is the cream of the current crop. In the past, I'd have gladly traded Jimmy Carter for Margaret Thatcher.
Big news media is very much the province of big business. But so we can be discussing the same issue, please identify the six outlets so we can do a little research into their ownership.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 13, 2006 at 8:00 PM
| link to this | reply
And it's not about the Republicans being misrepresented, The Republicans
and Big Business OWN the media, all 6 outlets, there is no LIBERAL media, that's a lie.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 7:45 PM
| link to this | reply
The rightwing really cannot stand the idea of A WOMAN In power, isn't that
right, Writer? That's what this comes down to. You hate Hilary worse than you hate cancer and you hate Nancy Pelosi, because they are not home being subservient and docile. Go figure.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Again I reiterate the math: $4 BILLION per day versus $300 million. Facts
are what cases are won or lost on, Writer, not hyperbole. You have a weak, untenable case. If only there were a judge to throw you out on summary judgment and we could end this charade.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 7:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Another angle on scale of proportion:
Had a Republican done this, we never would have heard the end of it, would we? Again: Nancy P was a leading critic of Republican pork-barrel spending.
By the way - Read the linked story about her, and you'll see that the $30,000,000 is about 1/4 of the the additional $115,000,000 in pork she earmarked for her district a year ago.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 13, 2006 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Scale of proportion, Justi, I'm afraid, $4 Billlion dollars per day on the
Iraq war just dwarfs the $30 million dollars that is not even a day's budget in Washington.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 7:19 PM
| link to this | reply
WOL
$30,.000,000 is never a drop in the bucket when it is pork; particularly in one of the richest areas in the country.
The cost of the war is a drop in the bucket compared to the price we will pay for losing that war. You have excellent posts, keep writing. Be blessed.
posted by
Justi
on November 13, 2006 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Writeroflight, let's keep a sense of proportion, shall we? $30M is NOTHING
a drop in the bucket, compared to the $4 BILLION a day being flushed down the toilet on the Iraq war. Peanuts, by comparison.
As usual, your vitriol is misdirected.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 13, 2006 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply