http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...e.asp?ID=17686
Printable View
I don't think many objective (or middle-of-the-road) people think of Tom DeLay as anything like a hero. But that may have come out already in formally-generated ethics and judgement questions.
That article is from a pretty far-to-the-right-wing rag. When I post articles here I try to obtain them from more mainstream objective sources. Though it's interesting to see what extremists are coming up with, it is not the 'meat and potatoes' of being informed.
This is a link from a relevant issue brought up in Melonie's article. -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152065,00.html
Starting with this excerpt....
3/31/05 FOX Poll: Majority Sees Removal of Feeding Tube as Act of Mercy
Thursday, March 31, 2005
By Dana Blanton
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif
NEW YORK — By a significant margin the public views the removal of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube as an act of mercy rather than an act of murder, according to the latest FOX News poll.
The new poll — taken prior to Schiavo's death — finds that a 54 percent majority sees the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube as "an act of mercy" and almost a third see it as "an act of murder" (29 percent), 7 percent say "neither" and 11 percent are unsure.
Earlier in the month, 59 percent of Americans said they would remove her feeding tube if they were Terri's guardian and 24 percent would keep it inserted (March 1-2).
Among those most likely to believe removing the feeding tube was an act of murder are blacks (50 percent), Republicans (39 percent), conservatives (38 percent) and those under age 30 (35 percent). At 67 percent, self-identified liberals are most likely to call it an act of mercy, as do clear majorities of Democrats (60 percent), men (58 percent) and independents (56 percent).
Beliefs on what should have happened in the Schiavo case appear to be closely tied to what respondents would want to happen to them under similar circumstances. If they were in Schiavo's place, a 61 percent majority says they would want their guardian to remove the feeding tube, 24 percent would want the tube to remain and 15 percent are unsure.
These new results show a shift from earlier in the month when 74 percent said they would want the feeding tube removed if they were in this situation and 15 percent would keep it inserted (March 1-2).
.....
hmmm ... odd that those 'formally generated ethics and judgement questions' weren't also directed to the myriad of Democratic politicians who have engaged in ethics and judgement breaches which dwarf those which DeLay is accused of.
... and the results of that widely publicized "Push Poll" were seriously skewed in favor of one desired outcome ...
~
Those issues are very active subject of debate all the time in the legislative branch. Many of them come out, but power plays determine which path the investigation and consequences take. I'm sure that the Republicans will take EVERY opportunity to unearth and expose all of the "Democratic politicians ... ethics and judgement breaches ". So far DeLay is the big target, seems to me.
You miss the critical point. Absent of a Toricelli-esque proof of guilt, it really doesn't matter what republicans do or say. What matters when absolutely no proof of guilt exists is what the New York Times or CBS News or a myriad of other supposedly objective mainstream news outlets have to say - or more germain to this thread what MoveOn.org and other Soros funded groups have to say. For example why didn't this little tidbit make any mainstream news outlets other than the LA times ?
My point is that the Republicans will ferret out the most egregious sins of the Democrats. And the Democrats will ferret out the most egregious sins of the Republicans. And right now the news is directed at DeLay.
Mark Twain cajoled us to continually watch Congress, as it is full of crooks of various sorts and affiliations.
(Now, it is my point of view that Republicans are closer to the Big Money and have more opportunities to play with it. Plus largely they think they are entitled to that, since they dole out big favors to big money, or at least now they have the bigger opportunity to. I only have to think back the Reagan era's "savings and loan bank" fiasco and the grossly massive overspending that diverted the Republican party from its traditional financially conservative goals. And sold out so much of this country to foreign interests. But that is just me wondering why.)
Sorry but I don't buy that theory. Otherwise much more would have been made of Sandy Berger's conviction (i.e. Trousergate), Dusty Harry's blatant legislative collusion with Nevada lobbyists who just happen to all be family members, John Kerry's blowing the cover of a CIA agent during a senate hearing earlier this week, etc. If the mainstream news media says and keeps saying that a particular person is guilty of something or other (despite no proof of wrongdoing) then it becomes important. If on the other hand the mainstream news media says with one back page story that something is guilty of something or other (even with proof of wrongdoing) then it becomes non-important.Quote:
My point is that the Republicans will ferret out the most egregious sins of the Democrats. And the Democrats will ferret out the most egregious sins of the Republicans. And right now the news is directed at DeLay.
I fully agree that media has enormous power to take a mountain out of a molehill, or ignore a mountain as if it were a molehill. And the public is very easy to dupe.
What the mainstream news media says and keeps saying ... becomes important to the public. But not necessarily to Congress. If it somehow becomes blatant enough or otherwise attention-getting (like Terri Schiavo) then Congress gets big feedback and they have to respond somehow, wise or not. Short of that, its spy vs. spy.
Quote:
I don't think many objective (or middle-of-the-road) people think of Tom DeLay as anything like a hero.
Quote:
That article is from a pretty far-to-the-right-wing rag
Quote:
media has enormous power to take a mountain out of a molehill, or ignore a mountain as if it were a molehill. And the public is very easy to dupe.
All of the above comments are dead on, IMO.
My opinion on Delay is that he is going to get the book thrown at him and made an example of and rightfully so... imo.
I agree with HK. I'm sure Congressmen and Senators violate the rules all the time, willfully or not. I think DeLay is a particularly egregious violator of them, but if he weren't such a strategically important target the Dems and their liberal allies probably wouldn't be attacking him on these issues (nobody wants to have their closets opened).
That said, I think he is guilty of those things and deserves to go down for them. He's a nasty operator who represents the worst of politics, and I'd be happy to see him go.
well that better mean that the same standard of proof of wrongdoing applies to every other member of congress ...
of course you won't see this reported in the Times !
I'd love to see a broom sweep clean all the congresspeople with violations of a similar kind and/or scope, but if that isn't going to happen I will shed no tears to see one particularly venal, unpleasant one made an example of.
And as far as that news story from Vermont...Actually, I'd guess you WILL see the NYT say that it is common for congresspeople's families to be paid by campaigns. Slate did, and isn't known for their conservative slant on things. It's just that this isn't news by itself...It wouldn't be news in DeLay's case except for the compilation of other ethical breaches he has been accused of.
I really don't see too much scandal in this case... it's all campaign funds. Now taxpayer funds...
that's different. So when freshman Senator Hillary C. spends way more than any other senator on her office or when Carol Mosely-Brown or David Dinkins wastes money on trips to Africa or when bribes are funneled through Jim Wright's wife or Dan Rostenkowski pays his mistress with taxpayer money or Wayne Hays' girlfriend Elizabeth ("and she couldn't even type") Ray or DOD money going for a fake job for Monica ("she wanted to work at the UN") Lewinski....then that's scandal.
Another less-ethical (illegal) practice is when politicians pay legal fines or bills with campaign money... like Newt Gingrich, Barney Frank, Harold Ford, Nicholas Mavroules, Albert G. Bustamante, and Joseph McDade. And don't forget the House Post Office and House Bank scandals (featuring uber check-kiter Barbara Boxer) or Abscam... Remember when politicians merely fixed friend's traffic tickets?
From the Associated Press:
# House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: Wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for working for DeLay's campaign and political action committees.
# Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman: Son Matthew received about $34,000 and daughter Rebecca about $36,000 for working on the senator's 2004 presidential campaign.
# Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.: Nephew Todd Reichert was paid $3,000 last year, plus several hundred dollars for mileage, for serving as driver.
# California Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark: Wife Deborah earns $2,400 a month for serving as campaign consultant.
# Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000.
# Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: Wife Laurie Stupak earned about $36,000 annually the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.
# Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio: Wife Elizabeth was paid about $1,730 a month during his 2004 campaign. She has worked as a campaign consultant for him since the 2001 election cycle.
# Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.: Cousin Ken Costa made about $45,000 for serving as a co-campaign manager last year.
# Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: Three college-age children worked on his campaign last year. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane $9,508 and Laura $17,766.
# Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.: Sister-in-law Sharon Davis has been his campaign treasurer since 1994,and daughter Libby Davis was his campaign coordinator in the last half of 2004. Libby Davis was paid about $2,334 a month; Sharon Davis was paid about $1,000 a month for bookkeeping last year.
# Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. She was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.
# New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop: Daughter Molly was paid $46,995 as his 2004 campaign's finance director.
# California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Wife Rhonda Carmony makes $40,000 a year as his campaign manager.
© 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
" I believe the judicary branch of government has overstepped it's authority on countless occaisions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the will of the people"-- Tom Delay
"Judges rule on basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to the pressures of the time."--Warren E. Burger (Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court 1969-1986)
Gee I wonder which one makes sense.
Myssi you left out this little tidbit i.e. an absolute finding of guilt and an imposition of a fine on Nancy Pelosi's PAC, caught making illegal contributions to other democratic candidates presumably in exchange for her being named minority leader
Pelosi PAC Hit With $21K Fine
By Brody Mullins
Roll Call Staff
February 9, 2004
A controversial fundraising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slapped with a $21,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission for enabling Pelosi to funnel more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates in late 2002 as she was vying to become Democratic leader.
Of course you don't see any calls from mainstream media to throw HER overboard !
I guess the far rightwingers here don't find this stuff disturbing..... for example this old ARTICLE talks about how House Republicans will likely change the rules of the House so that Tom DeLay can retain his leadership position even if he is indicted for illegal fundraising efforts in Texas.
Granted, an indictment is an accusation, not a conviction. Still, there is something unseemly, IMHO, about the party who claims to have just been given a mandate based on "values" suddenly lowering the bar when it suits their interests.
Of course, the GOP is claiming this whole thing is partisan, and I might normally be able to see something in that....except for the fact that DeLay has been censured on multiple occasions by the BIPARTISAN House Ethics committee.
:twocents:
Again, some would argue that the only 'lowering of the bar' taking place in the senate is related to Teddy Kennedy's nights out with his nephews in Florida clubs. Any DA can produce an indibtment on very little hard evidence, and the democratic Texas DA responsible for accusing Tom DeLay certainly has no shortage of political motivation. Similarly, the mainstream media can 'whitewash' a situation even when there is proof of guilt, i.e. Nancy Pelosi's PAC channeling illegal campaign contribution money to other democratic candidates. And I'll have the good taste not to bring up Torricelli's ten convictions again.Quote:
Granted, an indictment is an accusation, not a conviction. Still, there is something unseemly, IMHO, about the party who claims to have just been given a mandate based on "values" suddenly lowering the bar when it suits their interests.
Given the current climate of any fool with mainstream media support being able to bring any sort of charges against some senators, while at the same time actual proof of guilt in regard to other senators receiving next to no mainstream media coverage, I fully support senate rules which require some actual proof of guilt before ejecting a member.
Not only is there no shortage of political motivation, this DA has a history of doing this in the past. He once got Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson indicted. The case went to trial. After the DA presented his case against the Republican Senator, the judge threw it out saying he had not even come close to proving wrongdoing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Please clarify specificaly what you are refering to with Ted Kennedy
... as I mentioned before there is something unseemly, IMHO, about the party who claims to have just been given a mandate based on "values" suddenly lowering the bar when it suits their interests.
It's the changing of the rules to suit thier interests part that bothers me. I don't care which party does it. It's just plain and simple bad government behavior.
... Teddy out on the town with his nephews, and being so shitfaced he could barely stand up. This made a big splash in regional news a few years ago, but got little front page exposure in any of the mainstream news media.Quote:
Please clarify specificaly what you are refering to with Ted Kennedy
... which curiously enough brings us back on topic - that those who control the media actually get to determine not only what news US voters get to hear about versus not hear about through mainstream channels, but also get to paint an aura of 'perspective' as to how seriously that news should be taken as well as how it should be interpreted.
I figured that was what you were referring to but I wasn't 100% sure.
The two situation are just not comparable, IMO. One is a private life matter (getting drunk on ones private time ) The other is a very public matter.
Care to explain why Ted Kennedy out celebrating with his family and harming no one in the process (except maybe his own liver) is a bigger breech of the ethics standards than DeLay basically accepting bribes?
Also how did the Dems change or try to change the ethics rules to suit Ted Kennedy after said "night out" ?
Sorry, I just don't think the two situations are equal or even comparable. One is a violation of the ethics rules, the other is not. Comparing the two situations just isn't rooted in logic, IMHO.
Thanks for answering my question anyway :)
If only Justice Burger had remained true to that statement. In fact, Warren Burger was chief justice during a time when the Supreme Court vastly expanded its own power, finding new "rights" in the constitution that had somehow remained hidden from us for almost 200 years. His term set in motion the current conditions of judicial activism that we are still suffering from.Quote:
Originally Posted by madgrad
Quote:
"... John Kerry's blowing the cover of a CIA agent during a senate hearing earlier this week, etc."
Just to clear this up...
Kerry didn't out anyone. During the senate hearing, Lugar (R) was the first to mention Armstrong's name... Kerry used it AFTER he did (so if anyone did any "outing" it was Lugar). But more importantly, you can't "out" anyone who is already "out". Armstrong was publically named in several publications already. Armstong wasn't an agent but an analyst and wasn't under cover.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007
Conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge attempted to smear Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) by linking to an Associated Press report that falsely suggested that Kerry and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) "may have blown" the cover of CIA officer Fulton Armstrong.
Drudge went further than the AP in implicating Kerry. Omitting Lugar's name, he titled the link simply "Kerry Blows CIA Agent Cover?..." The AP article, written by AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan, reported that Kerry and Lugar both mentioned Armstrong by name during the April 11 Senate confirmation hearings of John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and falsely suggested that they "may have blown his cover" by doing so.
In fact, while Bolton's critics had apparently not previously mentioned Armstrong in connection with allegations that Bolton tried to retaliate against an intelligence analyst who corrected the text of a speech he delivered, government, news, and non-profit sources had publicly identified Armstrong as a CIA officer on multiple occasions prior to the April 11 hearing. In claiming that Armstrong "works covertly," Gearan apparently overlooked several significant references:
The faulty AP story appeared in major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and The Washington Post, which actually expunged Armstrong's name from the version of the story it published despite it having been widely reported both before the hearing, as noted above, and in coverage of the hearing.
- Former intelligence official Larry C. Johnson referred to "a senior CIA analyst by the name of Fulton Armstrong" in a January 23, 2004, interview with Salon.com.
- A House International Relations Committee schedule for the week of February 24, 2003, identified "Mr. Fulton Armstrong (Invited), National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, CIA" as a possible witness for a hearing titled "Overview of U.S. Policy Toward the Western Hemisphere."
- A summary of a 2001 conference hosted by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an agency that advises the director of central intelligence, titled "Prospects for WTO Trade Negotiations After Seattle: Foreign Strategies and Perspectives," identified Armstrong as a "National Intelligence Officer" for Latin America, a post within the NIC that "reports to the Director of Central Intelligence in his capacity as head of the US Intelligence Community."
- A listing of "expert speakers" on the website of the American Management Association identified "Fulton Armstrong, National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, long-time C.I.A. expert in the region." (That page is no longer posted on the website but is available through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.)
...
Now then... what about that outing of the CIA deep cover operative working on WMD, Valerie Plame, that Rove told several journalists was "fair game"? Still no indictments on that one.
Actually there HAVE been indibtments, and convictions, and failed appeals ...Quote:
Now then... what about that outing of the CIA deep cover operative working on WMD, Valerie Plame, that Rove told several journalists was "fair game"? Still no indictments on that one.