USA Today editorial failed to identify jailed members of Congress as Republicans
An August 6 USA Today editorial called the recently passed congressional ethics bill "the most far-reaching since Watergate" but claimed that the bill fell short in "two major areas": that earmarks would be disclosed "[b]ut they wouldn't necessarily be easy to find and connect to sponsors," and that "Congress failed to add independent panels to judge lawmakers' conduct." The editorial said further: "Never mind that two high-profile House members went to jail in the past 17 months in scandals that never even piqued the interest of the current House ethics committee." But the paper failed to identify the "two high-profile House members" as Republicans -- former Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (CA) and Bob Ney (OH). Indeed, the online version of the editorial links to an August 2 Associated Press article on the passage of the bill in the Senate, which reported that Cunningham is "in prison on corruption charges."
On September 15, 2006, Ney pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements in connection with the Justice Department investigation into former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison on January 19. On November 28, 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to conspiracy to accept bribes from defense contractors. He was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on March 3.
From the August 6 USA Today editorial:
In one way, this is pretty obvious stuff, but the reforms passed last week are nevertheless the most far-reaching since Watergate. They would bar several of the more blatant practices that institutionalize the far-too-cozy relationship between Congress and those who seek its favors. The question is whether this is just a start, or the final act. In two major areas, the changes fall short:
- Congress failed to add independent panels to judge lawmakers' conduct. Never mind that two high-profile House members went to jail in the past 17 months in scandals that never even piqued the interest of the current House ethics committee.
- On earmarks -- those special projects stuck, often secretly, in bills to direct your tax dollars to politically favored recipients -- Congress made some headway, but it's not nearly enough. Under the bill, earmarks would be disclosed on the Internet 48 hours before passage. But they wouldn't necessarily be easy to find and connect to sponsors: Members of Congress put off making earmarks searchable until it is "technically feasible."
What, don't they Google?
Maybe this is done for the same reason they lay Congress' low approval rating squarely on the Democrats...as if the Republicans have just stopped showing up.
Congress's low approval rating is due to two factors.
Republicans who have a knee-jerk reaction to everyone and everything Democratic, who refuse to acknowledge the good things done by this Congress.
Democrats who approve of much of what Congress has accomplished but think they haven't done enough good things.
In the days when the Republicans ran things, the Republicans surveyed had a similar knee-jerk reaction, and voted their approval of Congress despite the terrible record that the Republicans tallied while in control.
So Sue, Republicans just hate Democrats and will pooh pooh everything they do, no matter what.....I might agree with you on that, but it goes both ways.
And the Democrats really love this Congress but they want more "good things"?
Wow, that's a great summary of the low approval ratings of Congress........good job!
Tommy
I think Sue/Ellie was being semi partisan, you are correct this goes both ways but nothing will be done unless one of them loses even more seats, At this point in our nations history I do not see the Republicans as viable alternatives anymore, they have failed us economically and in foreign policy.
Semi partisan? It's just that Sue's characterization could have been spoken by a Republican verbatim, just interchanging the political parties. Die hards loooooove their party, and haaaaaate the other. This is not news, or hardly groundbreaking new territory.
In particular, I don't think Nomo's theory explains why Republican congressional approval is apparently even lower than that for Democrats. I could theorize on that, but I'll spare the forum the nonsense.
The "congressional approval poll results" we hear cited recently, on television and on the radio and in the newspapers, are worthless for being vague and unspecific.
I wouldn't even bother asking anybody "Do you approve or disapprove of the job done so far, of the 110th Congress in its First Session?"
I'd ask somebody instead:
"Do you know who are the two U.S. Senators from your state, and who is the Representative of your Congressional District?"
Because if somebody didn't even know the names of all three of their Congressional Representative's, what's the worth of their opinion of Congress?
Therefore, proceeding to ask only those respondents who know who all three of their Congressional Representatives are, I'd then ask:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job your Congressional Representatives are doing?"
As for those who said they approved, then enough said; go about your business, Citizen... but for those who said they disapproved of the job being done by their Congressional Representatives, I'd of course have to ask:
"Why?"
As in, "What vote on what legislative matter has your Representative cast, that you disagree with?"
"And if you disapprove of them not due to any vote they have cast, they why do you disapprove of them?"
All of which might yield interesting results, interesting discourse... they might say they disapproved of their Congressperson because they aren't holding the Bush administration accountable, or because they can't seem to bring our Sons and Daughters home alive, from Iraq... or because the U.S. Senate is so presently divided politically, that combined with the minority rights in that Chamber's Rules, we have the making for a "Congressional gridlock", anytime the president and his minions the Republican Senate leadership, think it would serve them...
But you know what? I don't think your average dude on the street gives it as much thought as that... he probably knows who his three Representatives in Congress are, but if he disapproves of them, he probably can't be specific enough to cite the votes and issues for that disapproval...
...he'd probably just say he disapproves of Congress because everyone else disapproves of them... because the polls indicate as much... because he heard so, on the television and on the radio and in the newspapers.
I would agree with you here.......most people always give a blanket thumbs down to the generic "Congress", but when it comes to their guy or gal, they fair much better.
Does your polling anticipate a split verdict? One of my representatives - the Representative, in fact - is a brain-dead louse, who I cannot yet manage to depose. I do get another chance in 2008, but I believe my country neighbors will outvote and outfund me.
One of my Senators is close, for a Senator, to what I need. One is better than any Repugnant, although a little weak on some issues. How would I vote that ticket?
I hear you Brother.
Sure, if my particular poll were actually taken, it would differentiate between those of your three Congressional Representatives in D.C. whose work you approved of, and those whose work you disapproved of...
And again, the respondent wouldn't be bothered with any more questions, were he/she to say they approved of the jobs their Representatives in Congress were doing... and were they to disapprove of the job being done by any or all three of those Representatives, then there'd be a separate "why" for each one...
And I'd point out a couple of things here: One, I'd only ask folks about the job they think their own Representatives are doing, and not that of any other state's Senators, or any other Congressional District's Representative...
Because it's only within our power to elect or deny anyone to these Offices, when it is us they petition for election... which is to say, who cares about other People's elected Officials?
That's their problem, and we can't fix it for them; only they can do that... and if the Good Folks in Sugarland liked tom delay, then tom delay is what they get...
...or got, I should say; as even them folks were fed up with that former exterminator's poison on Democracy (and I think maybe even he might someday be one of those "jailed Congresspersons" that the editorialists at USA Today conveniently neglect to mention is a Republican).
The other thing I'd point out: How hard is it to scratch beyond the surface of what People think about National Policy, and about those who craft the same as our agents in Congress, and about those who administer it in our Federal Government?
Why are we forever subjected to idiotic "approve/disapprove" poll results, by an idiotic "media", when it takes nothing more than a few dozen more words and a couple more minutes, to truly gauge the opinions folks have, on National Policy etc?
Thank goodness for better public forums, than the crap we get routinely on television, as a "media"...
Better forums like the one here, where those dozens more words and several more minutes are spent... and what we purchase by way of them, is like a precious metal, compared to the tin and brass of the televised 'pundits', in a worthless "media".
Praise this Internet Wire Brother!
The People's News Wire, at last!
I would say that they haven't done the most important thing...go after Bush and Cheney with torches and pitchforks...but that's just me.
I would agree with you, but that would stop any governing. We need roads repaired and our troops home more than hearings and drama.
We know.
;-)
Oh, that's just too extreme and you know it. We planned on a trial, kinda like they did with witches. We take them out into deep water and throw them in. If they drown, they're innocent. If they survive, they're guilty so we burn them at the stake.
But YOU"RE a witch. : )
If I'm not mistaken, you would be a female. I am a WARLOCK! :)
Oops, wait! I might be confusing you with Jlyons. Drinking does that, ya know...
After the bridge collapsed it wasn't Mr. Bush or Cheney who showed up to survey the scene, it was Mrs. Bush. She's the only one left who can walk the streets without fear of exactly what you described.
The only reason Mrs Bush showed up was because she was allready scheduled in the area.
AF1 couldn't get there in time? I'm sick of hearing about scheluding conflicts from an admin that puts public perception above all else. You're full of it.
I am full of what? This administration lies , uses Laura Bush to bail it out and that witch would not of even shown up if she were not scheduled allready. You want to be a Bush appeaser fine but dont verbally attack me for it.
AF1 couldn't get there in time?
You know as well as I do that if there had been a GOP fundraiser in the area, Pretzelboy would have been there faster than he could say "strategery".
:-)
Delusions again. You really need to take your medicine, Tommy.
I don't believe that it does go both ways as you suggest. The evidence clearly points to specific differences between the way liberals act and the way conservatives act. I could give you countless examples. This is one example.
Most Dems are happy with the things that the Democratic-controlled Congress has done, but many of them want them to have done more. The negative ratings, therefore, that many Dems are clearly giving to Congress is not that they are doing things wrong, but rather that they are not being aggressive enough in clamping down on what Bush and the Republicans did in previous years.
I think you've nailed it. Polls before and after the 2006 turnover don't factor in the sycophantic Republicans or the disappointed, anti-war Democrats.
It leads one to ask...do 30% of Americans really think George Bush is doing a good job, or do they just say that because their preachers tell them he's doing a good job?
Sue/Ellie
You make a great point, the other reason for Congress having a low rating is the Karl Rove PR Machine at full blast, painting the current congress as a do nothing. I think the real lesson is that Republicans must lose even more seats in 08 for any chance for real change. Otherwise we remain in our deadlock of nothing done.
Casey/Tommy,
I don't want to seem stupid, but who is Sue/Ellie that you guys are talking to? I've seen this on some other threads.
I'm guessing it's some kind of inside joke But I can't figure it out.
Sue/Ellie/NotthatGeorge and now Nomobush is a poster from way back who continually gets banned for personal attacks and gutter snipe rhetorical language. She reincarnates herself every so often in feeble attempt to disquise herself, yet again - but to no avail. She always "outs" herself.
Thanks,
I could not figure out who you were responding to.
I thought either I was missing some posts or that you guys were having some imaginary conversations inside your head.
Tommy said it best.
actually skeptical, it's certain people trying to start arguments by keeping up the sue/ellie stuff. you have noticed it's always the same little group doing it, and some of them are probably the same person.
Skep asked, we answered. No argument started here.
i will stand by my comments.
I agree Mefirst. I don't think most of these posters are discreet individual posters. They all sound exactly the same.
Tommy, I have the utmost respect for you, you have always been very nice to me and civil. I think it would be best if we stop the Ellie/Sue comments. You are a leader on the board here and if you disavow it , others may follow. I understand your frustration, I was a target of that person as well as others have targeted me in the past but its bad for our forum. There really is no proof that the NomoBush is that person and he or she deserves the respect that we all deserve.
Thoughts?
Doris,
Thank you for your comments. Since I respect you and your civility on this board, I certainly will reconsider calling that poster Sue. But nonetheless, your thoughts resonate with me and well worth taking into account.
Civility from all of us is a good thing, and no point to antagonize for the sake of it. You are right.
One more thing, I am not the leader for anything here, I have my own opinions as does everyone else.
Thanks Doris, you are a class act.
I have tons of imaginery conversations inside my head, but nobody hears them except me???
;)
hahaha.. my conversations in my head are real. Still I'm the only one who hears them.
;-)
You post so often I'm surprised you have any leftovers still rattling around in there.
Sue/Ellie and Notthatgeorge and now this new poster name is someone who comes on the site, attacks people by calling them names and creates an atmosphere of chaos on the sites. Many posters saw the game and got tired of it . That is what you see today.
Sue/Ellie is whomever the axis decides to bully: at this time, NoMoBush is the target. With enough provocation, these playground bullies figure anyone is bound to respond sooner or later, and then can be flagged by four (or more) of the cast, to be banned.
Curiously, the attacks on NoMo as "Sue" began despite there having been no "Sue-isms" to that time; and have managed to precipitate very little antagonistic response - at least compared to how *I* might have wished to respond.
"Axis"?
To me it looked like an "Axis" attacked poor Sueeld over the weekend , smearing her to no end.
Is that the technique heretofore known as "changing the subject"?
I cannot speak to Sueeld's condition, nor to concerted attacks upon Sueeld. I have myself taken a shot or two at Sueeld, but never noticed others piling on; nor do I recall sniping at Sueeld this weekend. Perhaps I have simply forgotten something dropped in passing? C'est la vie.
However, the obstinate insistence by several posters, that some designated poster "is the latest incarnation of " (sue/evil), remains quite notable, quite memorable, and, for those who participate, quite unforgiveable. *I* am not that big, to forgive before I have resisted, and denounced, such school-yard bully deployments of superior numbers against some perceived "easy" target.
More, as I have stated elsewhere - this thread, or one of the others in which the same bullies have perpetrated the same attacks - the charge is both unproven and denied by the target. It stops being innocent fun, after that denial is elicited. Then it becomes truly repugnant.
Congress' approval rating is in the toilet. I'm not solely blaming Democrats, but this lowest rating has come while the Democrats have been in control. That says something. And they have not accomplished anything of note, other than the typical bills which are passed by a majority of Reps and Dems anyway. Dems are also now known for stealing votes.
Unlike Media Matters, perhaps USA Today has heard of James Traficant, former Ohio Congressman. Or maybe they are somewhat familiar with the history of former Senator Robert Toricelli. Then there is that stellar Congressman, Alcee Hastings, an impeached former federal Judge. Cold Cash Jefferson comes to mind here, but obviously not Media Matters' mind, if they have one. Just who IS Alan Mollohan? Harold Ford? John Ford? And neither of these two has anything to do with manufacturing motorcars.
As Atilla the Hun (R) Mongolia said: "What's your point?"
The Media Matters piece is highlighting the fact that these disgraced Republicans are not being identified by party, and it's hard to believe that it is an innocent omission.
Can you come up with an article or piece in a major media outlet that didn't identify those people as Democrats? Because, you see, that's the point. No one denies that there are corrupt Democrats.
I love the title to this item:
USA Today Editorial Failed to Identify Jailed Members of Congress as Republicans
Awesome, it says it all!
As for titles, the recently passed Senate ethics bill, has these various titles (bills in Congress have more titles than does a third-world dictator):
A Bill to provide Greater Transparency in the Legislative Process (Official Title as introduced)
Ethics Reform Bill (Popular Title)
Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007 (Title as Passed in the Senate)
As I said, I love the title to MMFA's item... my title for S.1 (the bill number) would be:
The Jailed Republicans randall "duke" cunningham and bob ney Memorial Criminal and Ethics Act of 2007
Why is it that these people feel the need to keep the jailed republicans party affiliation a secret. Should the entire truth be told?
You know that "Liberal Media".
Bob Ney and Randy the "Duke"
Wiley cons that make people puke
They wanted the riches
Now they're just prison bi*tches
The full weight of justice, their rebuke
That was naughty so being a self flagellating liberal, please go ahead and flag me. No, I'll flag myself :0)
I just gave the flag a salute in honor of your limerick, Julia...
and to repeat from earlier:
As Lao Tzu (D) China says: "The highest virtue one can exercise is to accept the responsibility of discovering and transmitting the whole truth."
Mary, you are too kind. I see you like word play like I do.
yes, we does!
I'm thinking of trying Haiku poetry when inspiration strikes...
JJ
When you have enough limericks for publication please let me know. I want to be sure I’m on your mailing list. :-)