About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC offered no evidence in suggesting Democrats engaging in corrupt practices they denounced

April 27, 2007 5:54 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

47 Comments

In an April 25 ABC News report titled "Politics As Usual; Democrats Just Like the Republicans," chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that, although Democrats "criticiz[ed] the Republicans for turning Congress in to what [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder" while in the minority, they are now "taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play" in their fundraising from lobbyists and others. However, Pelosi's statement did not declare that Democrats would not do any fundraising if they became the majority party, and Ross, while discussing several fundraising events, provided no evidence that any of those events involved legal or ethical wrongdoing. By contrast, three Republican congressmen -- former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Bob Ney (R-OH), and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) -- have been indicted, and two -- Ney and Cunningham -- pleaded guilty to offenses during the 109th Congress. The report aired on the webcast of ABC's World News.

Another version of the report aired the same day on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, during which Ross also quoted Pelosi's January 2006 statement that "[t]he Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play."

During the World News report, Ross asserted that "Congressman Charlie Rangel [D-NY] and Senator Max Baucus [D-MT], collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York's financial elite this February," but again offered no evidence of "pay for play." Following that report, Ross asserted, "The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they're doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power." In response, Gibson said, "The more things change, the more things stay the same."

However, in neither report did Ross offer any evidence that these fundraisers constituted legal or ethical wrongdoing by any Democratic congressmen. He asserted that "Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, 28,000, as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who controlled the House," and added, "many say that is nothing short of pay for play."

Responding to Ross' assertion that Pelosi attended a fundraiser that cost "as much as $28,000 a person," Gibson asserted, "Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules?" and added, "I thought there were limits in how much you're gonna give." In response, Ross suggested the Democrats had found a loophole to otherwise applicable limits by claiming, "They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative," and adding, "By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a, a group of them." Ross continued:

For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that's what happened recently in a New York and a Fifth Avenue apartment, 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus.

In fact, the fundraiser Pelosi attended was for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as The Washington Post noted in a February 24 article. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the limit for donations to a national party committee is $28,500.

With respect to the Baucus-Rangel fundraiser, as the Post noted, and as Ross noted later on World News, the request was for up to $9,200 per person, not per couple. However, this was also within applicable limits and did not involve a loophole as Ross had suggested. According to the FEC, the contribution limit for a congressional candidate is $2,300, but, as the FEC notes, "the limit applies separately to each election," and "[p]rimaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections." Therefore, an individual could give $4,600 to each candidate per cycle, and $9,200 to two candidates.

Moreover, as part of his case for claiming that "the game is the same," Ross offered the example of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who raised funds by taking lobbyists to a Who concert in Washington, D.C. Ross noted that "nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price." But, as Ross noted, Issa is a Republican, so he hardly represents an example of Democrats, now in the majority, engaging in the same conduct they condemned.

The World News report was promoted on Ross's ABC home page under the headline "Congressional Democrats Spell Reform: C-A-$-H."

From the April 25 edition of the ABC World News webcast:

CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): We stick with politics, but of a very different variety. When the Democrats took control on Capitol Hill in January, they were criticizing the Republicans for turning Congress in to what Nancy Pelosi called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder. And she introduced legislation, you may recall, that she promised would fundamentally change how the Democrats interacted with lobbyists. Three months later, how are Democrats interacting with lobbyists? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, has been looking into that question. So how are they?

ROSS: Just as well as the Republicans did. They are now in power, and they are taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play, which to get access to Congress, you have to pay a lot of money, make contributions, provide all kinds of things of value. Some small rules have changed, but essentially, the game is the same.

GIBSON: Examples?

ROSS: For example, Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, $28,000 -- as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who control the House -- $28,000. Many say that is nothing short of pay for play.

GIBSON: Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules? Can you get -- I thought there were limits in how much you can give.

ROSS: Well, there are limits. They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative. By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a -- a group of them. For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group, and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that's what happened recently in a New York in a Fifth Avenue apartment -- 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus.

GIBSON: Now, you said there've been some small rules changes made. For instance, I thought you couldn't take the same kind of gifts from lobbyists that you used to be able to take.

ROSS: Exactly. Under the disgrace of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, they said you can no longer accept from a lobbyist free tickets, for instance, or for free trips. But they found a way around this. We were at a big concert for The Who in Washington, and in the skybox was a congressman, Republican Congressman Issa. He was there with lobbyists -- it was the same group. But what he did -- instead of receiving free tickets, he bought the tickets himself for about 125 bucks and then sold each one to the lobbyists for $1,500, made a nice profit, and still had a fun evening out.

GIBSON: Oh, wait a minute. He, he bought the tickets --

ROSS: He's like a scalper.

GIBSON: He bought it, he marked them up to 10 times the price --

ROSS: Right.

GIBSON: -- and then sold them to the lobbyists.

ROSS: Exactly. And they bought them, so it's the same thing. They're paying for the tickets.

GIBSON: So it's business as usual.

ROSS: Under a different set of rules, business as usual.

GIBSON: All right. Democrats, just like Republicans. Who knew? Brian Ross, our chief investigative correspondent.

From the April 25 edition of ABC's World News:

GIBSON: Next, we turn to politics and money. When Democrats seized control of Congress last year, they vowed to limit the influence of lobbyists and major donors and crack down on what they called the culture of corruption. Well, now the Democrats have settled in. Has anything changed? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, went back on "The Money Trail" to find out.

ROSS: This was the scene last month at a private estate outside Washington -- luxury cars delivering guests who paid as much as $28,000 to have dinner with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

REPORTER: How much did you pay for this party?

INTERVIEWEE: $10,000.

ROSS: Speaker Pelosi was whisked in under heavy guard in the kind of scene only a few months ago she labeled corrupt.

PELOSI: The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play.

ROSS: Only now, it's the Democrats who get wined and dined, taking full advantage of the system.

TONY PODESTA (lobbyist, Democratic fundraiser): There's a, a cuisine and a place to greet your favorite politician in almost -- any hour of the day or night.

ROSS: The chairs of the powerful congressional committees that set taxes, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Max Baucus, collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York's financial elite this February. Senator Baucus claimed not to know how much his guests had to pay.

BAUCUS: Gosh, I don't know.

REPORTER: You, you don't know?

BAUCUS: I don't know. I couldn't tell you.

ROSS: Campaign finance records made public this week tell the story. Democratic congressional campaign committees are raking in the cash, one and a half times as much as the Republicans in the first reporting period of the year.

ELLEN MILLER (executive director, Sunlight Foundation): Access is still for sale. There's no question about it.

ROSS: And the few changes that have been made haven't really made much of a difference. We found Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California in a private skybox with lobbyists and other big donors at a recent Who concert in Washington. Under new House rules, the congressman could not accept a free ticket. But nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price.

MILLER: It's just like the old days of Jack Abramoff, even though those days are what this Congress promised to clean up.

ROSS: The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they're doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power, Charlie.

GIBSON: For now. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

ROSS: That is exactly right.

GIBSON: Brian Ross on "The Money Trail."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (April 27, 2007 5:57 pm ET)
         

      More of that Liberal Media that Rush keeps telling us about.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by duncan12347948 (April 27, 2007 6:01 pm ET)
         

      Harry Reid took 66K from Jack Abramoff. Ok, documented now lets moveon.org.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (April 27, 2007 6:20 pm ET)
           

        Huh? Since I know that is not true, I am stuck between assuming you intend sarcasm involving some of the discredited "proof" that Abramoff was a bipartisan briber, and taking you are sincere in your delusion. Could you help, please, to clarify just what you meant?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 27, 2007 11:14 pm ET)
           

        No he didnt and I dont think the word documented means what you think it does. That is it doesnt mean you said so

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (April 27, 2007 6:03 pm ET)
         

      Unless I missed it, where does Ross level or even suggest the "corrupt" practice label on the Democrats.  What he does suggest is the Democrats are enjoying, legally, the privelege of power.....and it appears they are.  All their fund-raising is legal, there is no illegality implied or even suggested, which would denote corruption, as Ross specifically states, under current law.

      More unfounded whining about the poor Democrats and their ill treatment.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (April 27, 2007 6:16 pm ET)
           

        Unless I missed it, where does Ross level or even suggest the "corrupt" practice label on the Democrats.  What he does suggest is the Democrats are enjoying, legally, the privelege of power.....and it appears they are.

        I agree Tommy

        Look when all is said and done-- they are ALL a bunch of fat cats and enjoy every perk their power brings them.

        Does MMFA really expect the Dems should be immune to fair criticism? Hah!

        The only major difference I can see between the 2 parties is Iraq. And how each wants to deal with it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (April 27, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
             

          Oh come on, don't you know that Democrats are angels and saints who exist only to serve mankind and do the best for people of the USA? Do you really believe they are sociopathic killers of women and children, supporters of war crimes, and corporate cronies who are looting the USA for the benefit of the few rich at the expense of the impoverished many? Don't you read the posts here? The Democrats are Jesus-like liberals, who will save the planet from the evil Republican hordes!

          I hope my sarcasm is duly noted ;)

          Report Abuse
        • Author by steve k (April 27, 2007 10:57 pm ET)
             

          The only major difference I can see between the 2 parties is Iraq. And how each wants to deal with it.

          Please, not the "but both parties do it" meme again.

          Have you simply not been paying attention? The level and scale of corruption the Republican Congress reached in just twelve years is without equal in the history of American politics. The Abramoff scandal, the K-Street project, the gerrymandering scheme to create a "permanent Republican majority", all these projects made the worst, most thorough kind of corruption an everyday occurrence.

          The House of Representatives was a one-man show under Tom DeLay, no bill was written or passed without his personal approval. It was pay-for-play lawmaking of the most blatant kind; lobbyists literally wrote the laws.

          Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Bill Frist, Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, the list of dirty Republicans goes on and on and on. And on.

          The Republicans had twelve years in Congress. What exactly did they have to show for it? They impeached a popular president. What for? Because he lied about getting a blow job from a consenting adult.

          Meanwhile our current president lies us into a disastrous war, illegally spies on us, arrests and tortures citizens at whim, tears down the wall between church and state, and turns the Justice Department into a machine for attacking his political enemies. And what did our brave Republican Congress do? They rolled over and let the Great Decider scratch their tummy.

          Abortion, stem cells, gay rights, flag-burning, intelligent design: the rest of the civilized world had long ago dealt with these issues and moved on to actual problems, but not our brave Republican Congress. No low was too low in their zeal to pander to the small band of narrow-minded religious lunatics who formed their so-called "base." Janet Jackson's nipple, the Terri Schiavo "scandal", an amendment to ban gay marriage, the list once again goes on and on and on. And on.

          The Democratic Congress has accomplished more in four months than the last one did in six years. Their achievements, while barely adequate, are refreshing in the wake of systematic corruption and institutionalized insanity left by their predecessors. Impeachment may be too much to expect, but I haven't given up hope yet. They're still digging for dirt, and there's plenty left.

          The Democrats are mediocre. At their best they sound like they sort of believe what they stand for. There are some, like William Jefferson, who are corrupt a$$holes. But the Republicans are disastrous.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NotThatGeorge (April 28, 2007 10:17 pm ET)
               

            Great post, Steve.

            Add to this their baloney about global warming, and their complete politicization of all the executive branch of the government, and we've got a mess that will take decades to straighten out.

            I hate that. I've probably got 2 good decades, at most, ahead of me. I hope I get to see some semblance of repair and reconciliation in my lifetime.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steve k (April 29, 2007 2:01 am ET)
                 

              Amen! I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that we've been tyrannized by a small group of religious fanatics and sadistic bandits. In the next few years we'll see more people begin to speak out about where they see their country going, and where they'd like to see it go.

              As for global warming, people are starting to wake up to that danger too. Here's to hoping our leaders can step up to the plate and make a serious push for alternative energy before it's too late.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (April 27, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
           

        I don't think you missed it.

        They quote Ross: "everything they're doing is legal under the current law."

        Then two sentences later, they point out that Ross did not "offer any evidence that these fundraisers constituted legal or ethical wrongdoing by any Democratic congressmen."

        So, I guess that means we're all clear that nothing illegal has occurred.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (April 27, 2007 6:25 pm ET)
             

          So this headline is misleading and inaccurate. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (April 28, 2007 12:04 am ET)
               

            you're right tommy  abc's headline "politics as usual,democrats just like the republicans" is misleading.  since there was no evidence that the democrats are involved in anything like republican involvement in the abramoff scandal, it is misleading.  thanks for pointing it out.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by LarryE (April 30, 2007 2:49 am ET)
               

            So this headline is misleading and inaccurate

            Others have noted how ABC's headline made the accusation you deny was made, so I'll deal with what I assume you mean, MMFA's headline.

            That headline says Dems denounced corrupt practices by GOPpers and ABC offered no evidence that the Dems engaged in similar practices. Thus the headline was both direct and accurate and you are wrong yet again. 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (April 27, 2007 6:41 pm ET)
           

        How about in the title of his little hit piece?

        "Politics As Usual; Democrats Just Like the Republicans"

        If the Dems were just like the Repugnants, there would be some specific charges leveled, rather than simply smearing them as "just like the Republicans". Or is this dimwitted spokesperson of the Corporate Media unable to find any charges to level, and forced by that inability to specify wrongdoing by the Dems, to rely on depicting a pot vs kettle use of the "Culture of Corruption" label which adheres so firmly to those Repugnants?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (April 27, 2007 8:37 pm ET)
             

          How's about the charge of collaboration in war crimes? You know, voting FOR war crimes, voting to promote war criminals, voting to continue war crimes, to support war criminals in foreign lands. Committing crimes against peace, humanity, etc.

          I can name several Democrats who have done these things. The Clintons, Gore, Biden, Schumer, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein.

          This strange concept that Democrats can do no wrong only proves that those who support the DNC are as insane and delusional as those who support the RNC. Both sides claim they never commit crimes, while accusing the other side of everything bad DC does....when it's a collaborative, bi-partisan effort.

          That which is 98% evil is just as bad as that which is 100% evil.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (April 27, 2007 9:12 pm ET)
               

            Thanks for supporting the Repugnant Culture of Corruption: for indeed, your abstinence from the only going concern opposing them is once more default endorsement of them.

            Dems ain't saints - but they are far better than any accessible alternative.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by redking75687 (April 28, 2007 7:04 am ET)
                 

              There's a host of minor parties out there...Greens, Socialists, Populists. All offer a BETTER plan than the Democrats. But yet you refuse to vote for them, calling the same old tired corruption an "alternative". You are showing yourself to be a conservative and afraid to challenge the criminal status quo. You are not helping change America for the better, you are returning to office those who are destroying us. Thanks for nothing.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (April 28, 2007 6:52 pm ET)
                   

                and i will remind you again in the middle of your latest rant,  the nominee for the greens in 04, david cobb, said the following:  "a vote for kerry in those states won't help to unelect bush.  in the other states,  i'm acknowledging that there is a profound responsibility on the citizens, and they should weigh their options and decide how to spend their very precious vote."  so he acknowledges a difference.  rant on. 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (April 28, 2007 12:06 am ET)
               

            and who claimed the democrats can "do no wrong"?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 27, 2007 9:46 pm ET)
           

        Well I thought it was disengenuous at the LEAST to talk about something, I would consider unethical by ISSA, a REPUBLICAN, express incredulity at the brazenous, then say Dems just like Republicans. I mean where do they show a Democrat doing anything like that. I am not saying it isnt happing. I wouldnt be shocked to find some Democrats who are as corrupt ethically (as opposed to crimally like Jefferson and Ney) as some Republicans but if you are going to make the CLAIM its pretty weird that the story you keep talking about involves a REPUBLICAN.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (April 30, 2007 2:45 am ET)
           

        Tomfoolery said:

        where does Ross level or even suggest the "corrupt" practice label on the Democrats

        How about

        "The more things change, the more things stay the same,"

        thus equating the denunciation of corrupt practices by GOPpers with legal practices by Dems. That's how.

        Yes, I know it was Gibson who actually said those words. I hope you're not going to hide behind the cheap fakery of "I said Ross. Of course, Gibson did it, we all know that. But I said Ross." 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by chimpevil (April 27, 2007 7:54 pm ET)
         

      MMFA's headline was neither misleading nor inaccurate.  When Gibson asked how the Dems were "interacting with the lobbyists", Ross responded with:

      "Just as well as the Republicans did. They are now in power, and they are taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play, which to get access to Congress, you have to pay a lot of money, make contributions, provide all kinds of things of value. Some small rules have changed, but essentially, the game is the same."

      Ross then gave as examples two fundraisers--which are in no way what Pelosi was referring to with the "auction house" statement--that do not violate any rules and do not explicitly involve "interaction" with lobbyists.  That is precisely the contradiction the headline was pointing out.  Furthermore, the whole tone of the report, from the smarmy phrasing to the inflammatory graphics, suggested that "yeah the Dems talked a good game but are now doing the same corrupt stuff the repubs did", when in fact the only instance of slimy lobbyist dealings cited involved a repub!  Far from being misleading, as the usual naysaying suspects asserted, I would say MMFA knocked this one right out the park!

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (April 27, 2007 8:44 pm ET)
           

        Pelosi's top contributer is an oil firm called Occidental Petroleum. This firm was thrown out of Ecuador for gross environmental abuses. Noooo, Dems NEVER give take money from the unethical!

        Schumer was reported to have recently held a little meeting with four of the leading hedge-fund investors, apparently to shake them down for donations to keep upcoming legislation favourable to their interests. If they didn't pony up some contributions, then the Party would not word the legislation to their benefit. Them Dems NEVER engage in shady practices, like extortion or taking contributions in exchange for pro-donor laws. NEVER!

        What a little insulated world the average Democrat voter lives in. The Dems are like little angels, hovering over his bed, keeping him safe at night....as they steal all the money in his wallet and sell his children off to Coca-Cola to poison for profits.

        Welcome to political reality. DC is a slimepit and Democrats are wallowing in it with their buddies, the Repubs.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by chimpevil (April 27, 2007 10:35 pm ET)
             

          Talking point #1001--everybody does it, they're all a bunch of crooks, all politicians are corrupt, so why pay attention?  Now look the other way while I get mine! 

          Golly gee redslime you mean to say dems takes money from them nasty corporations, too?  Well, thanks for the edumacation, you wise weasel you! Oh puh-leeze like anybody here needs a lecture from your cynical azz to know that the problem with the system is that pols have to raise wads of cash to get elected and that both sides have to constantly have their hands out to corporate donors in order to even have a sniff at high office.  Yeah we get it junior, but good lord do you get that the repubs of modern times have taken the practice of influence peddling and naked greed to historic and stratospheric levels, and furthermore that the corporate media has greatly facilitated this unabashed corruption by refusing to do their job and tell the truth??? 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by redking75687 (April 28, 2007 7:11 am ET)
               

            And the Dems had nothing to do with it, did they? Bill Clinton wasn't pandering to every corporate interest. Heck no. He just pushed for "free trade" agreements that let every Tom, Dick, and CEO pick up the factories and haul butt to China. The Dems NEVER do that, right?

            Or how about the John Huang situation. Clinton SOLD OFFICES for donations, a medieval practice which usually ends up putting crroks and incompetents into positions where they can move our tax money to their pockets.

            Yes, Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. So don't defend a corrupt system. FIGHT IT!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jscott (April 28, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
                 

              Yeah, Clinton pushed NAFTA, in co-operation with the republicans, and then the righties accused him of stealing their ideas and claiming them as his own.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by redking75687 (April 28, 2007 7:07 pm ET)
                   

                They all do that. They're idea theives. They have to be, they have no ideas of their own. That's how we progressives got a lot of business regulation in place, the Big Two got scared of the growing strength of a minor party back in the 20s and 30s and stole their ideas. If the Dem party had to face mass desertions to the Greens or Socialists again, they'd start stealing our platform and moving to the left. Of course, once the threat to their power base was diminished, they'd revert right back to the right-wing scum that they are. Can't trust a thief.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by jscott (April 28, 2007 8:27 pm ET)
                     

                  Is it safe to assume, then, that you support a third party candidate?  Just curious, who would that be, since you are apparently not a fan of either dems or repugs?  Also, is your party so small that you can't get your own watchdog website, resulting in the need to come on here and attack ours?  Finally, would I be out of line thinking it possible that you are, or are somehow connected to a palestinian, or were abused as a child by a jew?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by redking75687 (April 29, 2007 7:08 pm ET)
                       

                    I'm a Green. And I come here to attack Democrat misinformation, such as the lie that Democrats are liberals and not committing war crimes and facilitating torture and funding the corporate destruction of America. We can bash Repubs till we're blue in the face, but to leave out the Democrats is to leave out the other half of the criminal conspiracy against the American people and to reward that half of the criminal elite.

                    I love my state, I have a deep respect for the liberal ideas that Pennsylvania was founded upon. To see the Repubs AND the Dems use our tax dollars for war crimes and torture chambers and to refuse us the kind of peaceful and supportive government that our forefathers, like Penn and Franklin, envisaged....it makes me mad. Both parties stink to high heaven and to only condemn one is to ignore the Big Picture.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DeminTX (April 30, 2007 11:08 am ET)
                         

                      Liberal PA?  If it weren't for Pgh and Philly, PA would be as red as any southern state.  I believe they still have the blue laws in effect.

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (April 28, 2007 9:08 pm ET)
                     

                  i have no problem with voting green, except it should start at a local level and move up.  show some strength at a state level and then go national.  otherwise you end up with a vote for nader putting the wretched bush in office, a guy who will appoint judges that will declare unconstitutional everything that nader ever supported.  and a lot of those things nader supported were put into place by democrats.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by TheEskimo (April 27, 2007 8:41 pm ET)
         

      I would say MMFA knocked this one right out the park!

      Yeah, waay over the LEFT field wall...Let's stick to O'Riely bashing, MMFA, and leave the opinion pieces to the radio guys. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by openmind456 (April 27, 2007 8:44 pm ET)
         

      Lets accept it that it is a network that is not far behind FOX in spreading false news and disinformation campaign to dupe the public. It was also in the forefront of pushing the iraq war on the American public. It part and parcel of corrupt media.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (April 27, 2007 9:41 pm ET)
         

      It takes money to operate in the political arena and the most direct conduit to the most cash is through lobbyists.  Probably at the current time, all is above board in the D party, but give it a couple of election cycles when they really realize what power they could have and there will, in all likelyhood, be D Congresspeople caught up in the same type of whirlpool that sank the Rs in 2006.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (April 28, 2007 12:55 am ET)
           

        Now, THAT is a viable expression of concern! As strongly as I maintain currently, the differential between Repugnant Corruption, and Dem compliance, I admit to fear for the potential, were the electorate to swing solidly behind the Dems for an extended period, of similar ethical and criminal behavior by those Dems. However, there is one additional check on the Dems, that has not for 30 years, applied to the Repugnant arm of the (former) Republican Party: the Corporate Media Oligopoly created by thirty years of consolidation, vociferously opposes the Dems, lessening the likelihood of such extended electoral prevalence; and will pounce like a cat on the catnip ball, on any glimmer of corruption, seizing the opportunity to restore their own march toward controlling the world. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (April 28, 2007 7:15 am ET)
           

        Democrats get like 40% of their funding from the Israel lobby, who are dedicated to keeping the US involved in war crimes in Israel, Iraq, and now Lebanon. So it looks like the Dems are not above board on all this money flying about. They're takin cash to KILL arabs for Israel and vote accordingly.

        Keep voting for them killers. At least they don't have the R behind their names, right?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (April 28, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
             

          You're a funny guy.  When Isreal attacked Lebanon last summer, bush (lowercase intentional) didn't say a word for the first week.  Later, "some said" (like the faux news technique?) he was hoping to help it escalate into an excuse to drag Jordan and Syria into the Iraq quagmire.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by redking75687 (April 28, 2007 7:11 pm ET)
               

            He didn't say much but Congress did. They overwhelmingly voted to support Israel blowing up civilian homes and gunning down families in their cars as they fled the war zone. Like I keep saying, both parties are war criminal. Their voting record proves it. We have to stop electing killers.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jscott (April 28, 2007 8:34 pm ET)
                 

              As I seem to racall, all the righties could seem to spew during that period was how little the Dems cared about supporting Israel, because many of them were speaking out against their actions.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by redking75687 (April 29, 2007 7:12 pm ET)
                   

                The righties like to lie about Democrats. They don't point out that the Dems have consistently voted for Israel every time. Both sides are chocked full of liars, so one must look at the ACTIONS, not listen to the words. And the actions spell "war criminals" on both sides of the aisle.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (April 28, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
         

          Anyone with half a brain knows that money in the political arena only corrupts Republicans! Why to even suggest that Clinton or Obama or Reid might do a 'shady' deal is just ludicrous! Clinton made her money in the futures b/c she's smart! Reid's land deals in Las Vegas are the epitome of honesty and openness. Obama didn't know his donor-friend was a sleazeball!

          And yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (April 28, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
           

        I take it that you rise to speak for those with half a brain?

        Lord knows, they urgently need a spokesperson, and you have provided sterling qualifications in your introductory post.

        </sarcasm> (yeah, I didn't OPEN sarcasm, to avoid a spoiler)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (April 28, 2007 8:38 pm ET)
             

          That's how ya gotta do it.  Dust'em off before they can get settled in.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by NotThatGeorge (April 28, 2007 10:31 pm ET)
           

        Anyone with half a brain knows that money in the political arena only corrupts Republicans! Why to even suggest that Clinton or Obama or Reid might do a 'shady' deal is just ludicrous! Clinton made her money in the futures b/c she's smart! Reid's land deals in Las Vegas are the epitome of honesty and openness. Obama didn't know his donor-friend was a sleazeball!

        Comment by EdRoss......

        Money can corrupt anyone. The Republicans came into office claiming that it would not corrupt them, but they have been more corrupted and more corrupting than any previous majority group in the last 15 years. What anyone with half a brain knows is that this group of Republican leaders has been incredibly corrupt, moreso than any Democratic group ever was. There have been, and will continue to be, corrupt Republicans, Democrats, independents, dog catchers, school teachers, cops, ministers, office managers, doctors, etc.

        The corruption from the Republicans has been systemic, and pervasive, and endemic.

        Clinton didn't do a shady deal. The special prosecutor spend millions of unnecessary dollars, as it turned out, to prove exactly that to the nation. It's too bad that you missed his report that cleared her. It's too bad that you crap on our nation's laws, and suggest that an independent prosecutor who finds no fault should have his findings ignored. It's too bad that you think so highly of your own investigative skills that you think you know that Clinton did something wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary and all the evidence that disproves that belief!

        There's no evidence that Reid or Obama did anything shady. There's lots of evidence that many Republicans have done shady dealings.

        Even if Reid and Obama had done shady deals, it would, in no way, excuse any Republican wrongdoing.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (April 29, 2007 10:16 am ET)
             

          But it's much easier for him to get his opinions from faux news and rusty limpdick that to actually engage that cerebral cortex.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (April 29, 2007 10:17 am ET)
         

      "than" to actually...

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.