CQ uncritically quoted Republican aide's false assertion about location of Pelosi property
In a May 7 article on Republican complaints that earmark disclosure rules allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to "certify that she had no financial interest in an earmark for repairing a pier even though her husband owns properties nearby," Congressional Quarterly Today quoted without challenge an anonymous "senior Republican aide" who made a claim about the distance between the pier and the Pelosi properties that was significantly less than the distance asserted by the Republican Study Committee (RSC). In the article, staff writers Jonathan Allen and Kathleen Hunter quoted the senior Republican aide saying, "If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi's million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water." Unless Woods can drive a ball more than a half-mile, the anonymous aide's claim conflicts with the assertion on the RSC's blog that the Pelosi properties are "within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet" of the waterfront improvement project.
In fact, Woods won the Laser Link Long Drive contest in 2006 "with a drive of 340 yards, with weather and course conditions being nearly perfect." Two such drives by Woods would travel 2,040 feet, not even half the distance the RSC claimed was between Pelosi's property and the earmarked project.
As Media Matters for America documented, Associated Press writer Erica Werner reported in a May 7 article that "Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco." Werner also noted that Republicans have offered no evidence to support the accusation -- raising the question of why the AP thought the article worth writing at all.
Further, in a May 8 post, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent reported that Port of San Francisco officials said they requested the improvements included in Pelosi's earmark. From Sargent's post:
But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? It's representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
From the May 7 Congressional Quarterly Today article:
Republicans have complained for months that the Democrats' earmark disclosure rules are flawed, and now they have targeted a prominent figure to underscore their point -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
They note that the rules allowed Pelosi to certify that she had no financial interest in an earmark for repairing a pier even though her husband owns properties nearby.
No one has publicly accused the California Democrat of trying to enrich herself with the $25 million authorization for a larger waterfront redevelopment project that includes San Francisco's Pier 35.
But Republicans contend that the situation illustrates the limitations of a new requirement that lawmakers certify that they have no financial interest at all in the earmarks they pursue.
[...]
The new House ethics rule adopted in January requires lawmakers who seek earmarks to provide a written statement to the committee of jurisdiction, including their name; the name, address or location of the beneficiary; the purpose of the earmark; and a certification that neither they nor their spouse has a financial interest in the provision.
Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35's substructure were needed "to enable full cruise ship use of the pier."
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi's husband, Paul.
"If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi's million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water," said a senior Republican aide. "I don't see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them."
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker's 2006 financial disclosure forms.
This is what they do, they smear until the lies become the everyday word by the MSM. This is another lie and smear of Pelosi.
Its got legs. Two postings on this subject in less than one day from go. Who else will repeat this as legitimate news?
"Between $100,000. and one million dollars from each"? That's a pretty big range. It indicates, to me at least, that there's been little, if any, on the ground reporting.
I have a feeling that's what the required form asks. It is probably a check-off box that has entries like "$50,000 to $100,000, " "$100,000 to $1,000,000," etc.
I've learned that when numbers like this are quoted, it is quite often because that is how they are requested on the income reporting forms.
And what the heck does property ownership have to do with the discussion of present day government affairs ? There are more pressing matters to spend debate energy on.
I say, use this circumstance to tighten the laws, GOP. Make it ILLEGAL to have any financial interest, either direct or through family, with any POTENTIAL "improvement" done by government.
Needless to say, such a net would wipe out the Republican Party.
So, it won't happen, and is ridiculous on its face.
Except, of course, that it gives the flimsiest of all basis for the GOP's main strategy of SMEAR (without foundation).
What's more, the rule as the GOPpers want to interpret it, under which it would be a violation of House rules to introduce a proposal that could even indirectly benefit some interest even beyond the range of the earmark, would make it almost impossible for any member to introduce legislation that would benefit their district.
But, it's a little different when the legislature directly benefits the house/senate members spouse. That is a little crooked, even by democratic standards. I'm willing to bet the farm that if a republican was involved in an exact same circumstance that the democrats and their liberal followers would not be giving them a "free pass" as in this case.
BTW, a mile is 1760 yards. 2 'Tiger Woods' shots would go 680 yards, but a 3rd would take the total to 1020 yards...well over the half mile that is determined to be "misinformation" by mmfa. What a classic complaint by the originators of misinformation.
Talk about originators of misinformation.
The aide quoted in the story claimed that if Woods teed up a ball and hit TWO strokes, that it would reach the earmarked area. Then you come along and posit that if he hit a THIRD shot that it would reach further than the 1/2 mile that MMFA indicated.
My response to that is, IF A FROG HAD WINGS, HE WOULDN'T BUMP HIS ASS SO MUCH.
They can get to this right after the investigation of Denny Hastert's property, on which he personally earmarked the money for improvements to the highway exit leading to his property.
This is just another attempt at GOP deflection. They think that if they can point out very loudly something the current Speaker didn't do, it will deflect attention from the unethical and possibly illegal actions of the corrupt former Speaker.
"But, it's a little different when the legislature(?) directly benefits the house/senate members spouse."
Different from what?
"That is a little crooked, even by democratic standards."
Unsupported implication og Democratic crookedness aside, how so?
"I'm willing to bet the farm that if a republican was involved in an exact same circumstance that the democrats and their liberal followers would not be giving them a "free pass" as in this case"
I hope that's not the farm where you produce all of your straw.
TW, a mile is 1760 yards. 2 'Tiger Woods' shots would go 680 yards, but a 3rd would take the total to 1020 yards...
Keep going...you're still 2 drives and a pitch away.
Wow, Autopsycho! Your math logic leaves me speechless. Let's see if I understand; The Republicans originally said that the property is about a mile away, another Republican says it's two Tiger Woods shots... you say that if you add a third shot, you're half the distance that MMFA is disputing. BRILLIANT! Okay, if we divide the six actual shots it would take by the two that the Republican worm claimed, then add the three that you're proposing...we have five, which is almost six, so... what's the beef, right?
If the GOP are going to use the standard that you cannot have any interests "near" a site benefiting from an earmark how about stating what the distance is. I suspect in the case of Speaker Pelosi anywhere in the state of California would be too close. In the case of Republicans the standard would probably be that it is not the same piece of ground. And I am sure they would find a way around even that distance.
One obvious way to avoid this issue is to totally eliminate all earmarks. If a project is worthwhile let it go through the regular appropriation process. Hold hearings and post the request on the internet. Put every non defense related project on a public map with the location of all land or other interests owned by any pubic official.
Helllooooo,
As a waterfront property owner in a coastal town that has cruise ships coming and going constantly I would like to know how fixing a pier and seawall to accomodate MORE Cruise ships carrying thousands MORE annoying tourists to cram your streets would be considered a "benefit"? I'd pay good money to build a reef to keep the cruise ships out all together.
The new House ethics rule adopted in January requires lawmakers who seek earmarks to provide a written statement to the committee of jurisdiction, including their name; the name, address or location of the beneficiary;
I like how the demoncrats can allow ethics violations since January, but can't get ANY of their "100 days" promises through. They're as crooked as the republicans and the liberals are giving excuses to allow them to continue.
And which ethics violations have Democrats in Congress allowed since January? I ask you to cite specific examples, because so far, in the world most of us like to call "reality", there haven't been any. So please, I ask for specific examples of these so called ethics violations that you're talking about here, and please, link actual real news sources, not NewsMax, or some third rate hack blog that doesn't actually report news (Drudge comes to mind) or actual truths.
And unless you've not been paying attention, there were a lot of the 100 hours/days issues that the democratically controlled Congress did pass, and moved through. Of course, then again, you weren't probably paying very close attention at all.
And the ones that didn't were due to Republican obstruction in the Senate.
Yeah! Which ones, jscott? Tell us!
How about the minimum wage bill, and the bill rescinding the huge tax breaks for the oil companies so they can continue to enjoy record profits year after year. They were supposed to use these tax breaks to re-invest in their infrastructure and to get mor oil out of the ground, insted they are using their RECORD profits to buy back their own stock, thereby enriching themselves and all their oil company buddies, like the bush family.
And unless you've not been paying attention, there were a lot of the 100 hours/days issues that the democratically controlled Congress did pass, and moved through.
Oh? Which ones? And I ask that you provide detailed link information not coming from left wing hack sites like mmfa, cbs or similar propogandate sites.
I think your challenge was to Mags, but allow me to interject that ONE of those issues is the very issue that is the basis of THIS THREAD, and that is EARMARK REFORM. You may argue against the effectiveness of the reforms, but they DID pas the reform measure. You're welcome.
CBS is far from a propaganda site my friend. They have a good reputation in the world of real news. As do the other 2 big networks. Sure they screw up sometimes, but normally said screw ups are followed up by retractions (if required) and corrections of stories, as required, but that is neither here nor there.
Democrats officially kicked-off their first 100 hours on January 9, 2007. The first bill that was introduced focused on implementing recommendations put forward by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on July 22, 2004. The following six issues were ultimately addressed in the first 100 hours:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=110th_Congress/Democratic_Party_agenda
Again, methinks you forgot about the things that they did do once they gained power back in the House and Senate. I also ask you again to provide proof (which you have none) of what ethics violations that the democratically controlled Congress "ignored". You don't have any.
I'm still waiting for you to show us where democrats are as crooked as republicans in their ethics violations that they've committed since they took power in January.
What? You're not paying attention to the very story that this thread is directed at? Even linked to mmfa. Pelosi is in violation of the very ethics she wishes to eliminate! (unless, of course, it's a democrat, then it is allowed)
" Pelosi is in violation of the very ethics she wishes to eliminate!"
-----
What part of Pelosi had nothing to do with the request or the improvements is hard for you to understand?
Never mind, the obvious answer is: all of it .
You OBVIOUSLY didn't even read it. Where in this article does anyone even accuse Pelosi of wrongdoing? They DON"T! That is the POINT of the article. No one ACCUSES her of wrongdoing, they simply INSINUATE it. They IMPLY wrongdoing. They SUGGEST ethics violations. The reason MMFA mentions it is because the AP is guilty of SHODDY JOURNALISM. Then YOU come along and provide a real-life example of the dangers of this right-wing MISINFORMATION by demonstrating that you swallowed it HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER.
Ahem. As others have stated, this story was about how people were insinuating with no proof of any wrongdoing, that she did do something wrong. Sort of just like what you're doing. I say show me some proof of ethics violations since the democrats took over Congress in January of 2007, and you point to a debunked story. I showed you my links for the 100 hours / 100 days agenda, and the actual progress that they have made since taking office, and you quote the debunked story. Please, you've got to try harder than that.
As others have stated, this story was about how people were insinuating with no proof of any wrongdoing, that she did do something wrong.
Think about it, for a moment. Here is a quote from the Pelosi camp: Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said "1.1 miles is a long way in San Francisco," adding, "This isn't stuff that she pushed, this is what the port came to her with."
Pelosi got House members to authorize $25 million to improve the Embarcadero port area, clearing the way for cruise-ship-dock development and other improvements to aid the neighborhood's comeback. Did you notice the word "area" and that the entire "neighborhood" would benefit from the "developements and improvements". I'm sure she didn't seek out to make the deal, but I certainly understand that she would (and did) take full advantage of her position to get it passed once given the opportunity to earn more value (financial/political). That's the unethical part
If all you're argueing about is whether it is "dis-information" whether it takes 2 or 3 Woods' shots to go the distance then you have focused on the wrong part of this story and truly did yourself a disservice by pointing out a strawman arguement to distract from the real story.
YOU"RE the one who tried to suggest that a THIRD shot would somehow refute MMFA's position. Talk about a STRAWMAN. Apples to oranges is NOT a comparative analogy.
So, if someone proposes an improvement in a member of Congress's district, they should say no, otherwise it's unethical.
I guess we can just rule out any improvements anywhere in the country then. I'd better start working on some asphault so we can patch all the potholes on our local roads.
(Jeopardy music) He's furiously searching Fox News transcripts while you wait.
"I like how the demoncrats can allow ethics violations since January, but can't get ANY of their '100 days' promises through."
-----
Please state precisely which of those actions did not happen. The 100 days action was successful.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of a good smear. You haven't so far.
Anyone seen AUTOPSYCHIC lately?
Busy being fooled by another sucker story somewhere.And not by some hack site like MMFA or CBS either !
As AutoPsycho's lame talking points clearly illustrate, this is pretty ridiculous, even for the Flying Monkey Liars. If you extend their "interpretation" of the rule to it's logical extreme, then no Congressperson could vote for any improvement in the district in which they live. If I own a house in County Whatever, building a school, highway, factory, sewage plant, bridge or anything could increase my property value.
<> Once more, this demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party and its dishonest apologists on this forum. They've chained themselves to a rapidly sinking ship, and they can't gnaw their own legs off fast enough.Yet another lame attack on Pelosi
If these certain Repugs are so concerned about conflict of interest, where was (and is) the outrage about Dick Cheney still on the Haliburton payroll? After no bid contracts, failure to provide services, rip off of the US gov. and on and on, Cheney still refuses to sever his ties to, and money from, Haliburton.
Real stand up guys, these Repugs.
Yet another lame attack on Pelosi[.] If these certain Repugs are so concerned about conflict of interest, where was (and is) the outrage about Dick Cheney still on the Haliburton payroll?
'Deffered pay and previously bought stocks? That's your complaint of being on the payroll? Besides, you do know that the pres and vice-prez are exempt from the enforcement of ethics laws (clinton proved that)? The only reason people attack the unethical business deals of pelosi is because she keeps doing them. When she stops doing unethical deals then people will stop lamely attacking her.
"Previously bought" stocks? So he doesn't have them anymore? If a judge rules on a case regarding a company he owns thousands of shares of, it doesn't matter if he bought them three days or forty years previously. It's still conflict of interest.