So, lemme get this straight: the “battle” and “fight” and “controversy” is over which DEMOCRAT is going to be MAJORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES under SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi?
I could not care less about who’s in the job if that’s the case. They’ve got a (D) after their name. That’s what matters.
Of course it matters. Being back in power means that everything we do is under scrutiny and subject to attack. It’s not like the Republican Slime Machine has been rolled into the shed.
Murtha gets major kudos (from me, at least) for raising his voice on Iraq. But he has some ethical issues. Hoyer and Pelosi are rivals. Those are the basic facts as I understand them at the moment.
I vote for Murtha. What with his Abscam ties, shady dealings with his brother, and ’surrender in Iraq ‘credentials, he epitomizes the Democrat we want to run against. And please, please may I request bribery prone Alcee Hastings in Intelligence and John Conyers in Judiciary. Last year two of his own staffers accused Conyers of serious ethical lapses. Once Conyers sets out on his show trials of the Bush Admin, the Dems will be lost. Throw in Harry Reid with his geometrically exploding ethics problems and we have a brighter future in 2008.
Dugs is still reeling from the election … although he HAS put the Scotch back in the cupboard.
Oh, it matters….
Oliver- for one who spent weeks typing the words “Culture of Corruption” over and over (one of those talking points phrases I was talking about), you should care deeply about who assumes leadership positions in the Democratic party.
If you really want people to believe in the people they just voted in, then the Dems should make their choices very carefully.
Forget about the Republicans. It’s the Independents who are watching.
(Of course, it may just have been a talking point with no meaning at all. I guess we’ll find out.)
We see now the qualities Dugger likes in Bush and the Republicans.
I nominate Elvis.
–|PW|–
There’s that S-Word again, Dugger. What did we tell you about that?
David Sirota has a good take on this. Salient points:
1. Hoyer, like Lieberman, finds himself in the “Oh no, I was always against the war, really!” camp, when while Murtha was first speaking out and standing alone Hoyer was doing everything possible to stab him in the back.
2. While we can certainly expect to hear the phrase “Abscam” endlessly from the Wingnuts for the next 2 years, Hoyer essentially has his own private K-Street project. Since the latter graft-generation engine was a significant thing the public voted against, enabling something like it on the D side would be not so hot.
Hmmm. So Hoyer too has ethics problems. Can’t we find at least one Democrat not ethically challenged. How about that Jefferson fellow in Louisiana? I’m sure loyal, corruption-concerned Democratic voters will be returning him to office.
Wow, Dugger, that’s bitter. It must suck when somebody manages to convince the voters that the opposition party is guilty of things that they themselves have credibility issues on.
By the by, Democrats have been solidly rejecting Jefferson in Louisiana. If the GOP had done the same with the litany of Abramoff associates instead of circling the wagons and pretending it was no big deal, they might still be the Majority Party next year.
Well, I for one am certainly glad that the Democrats are “draining the swamp” of corruption on Capitol Hill.
The New York Times reports:
And then there’s Alan Mollohan (D-WV), about whom TPM Muckraker.com says:
Cue frameone, who will admonish me that Alcee Hasting’s impeachment was a mere technicality, and, besides, it was 20 years ago, and that what “everyone knows” Bob Gates did, but apparently was never charged with, much less convicted of, is far, far worse.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
BD, Jefferson beat his runoff opponent easily in the first election. Do you doubt he will win?
“(one of those talking points phrases I was talking about”
You do realize that your calling anything and everything you disagree with a “talking point” has become boring, don’t you?
Change it up once in a while, just for fun.
What’s with the defensiveness about “talking points?”
Not everything I disagree with is a talking point.
Oliver has a tendency to use catch phrases more often than analysis. That’s what we (he and I) are discussing right now in the midst of some of these threads. He wonders why I say it often about what he writes. That’s why.
For example- I don’t consider this post we are discussing a “talking point.” Oliver made a genuine statement of how he feels without resorting to a list or a catch phrase.
And yet I clearly disagree with the point that “it doesn’t matter.”
Nor do I think that the Kos kids, or Jane Hamasher, or C&L, or David Anderson,, or Josh Marshall etc. rely on talking points. Thus, in the rare times I comment at those sites, I don’t refer to “talking points”, because they’re not as prevalent.
It’s a writing style that Oliver seems to be most comfortable with and that he’s got a knack for. If the words “talking points” doesn’t work for you, try substituting “catch phrases”, or “sound bites” or “bumper stickers” or “branding” when I use it.
What’s with the defensiveness about “talking points?”
Defensiveness? Whose?
Marty described the expression “Culture of Corruption” as a “talking points phrase.”
At not point did Marty “agree” or “disagree” with the phrase, but suggested that since Oliver used it so much during the campaign, he ought to continue to take it heart after the victory.
So, yes, your unwarranted accusation that Marty was somehow disagreeing with the expression “Culture of Corruption” does come off as defensive.
Steny Hoyer is 100% AIPAC
“I cannot tell you how honored I am to speak to the members of this great organization, who understand better than anyone the imperative of a free, independent Jewish State and who know that a secure, successful Israel serves the national interests of the United States of America.
And it’s no surprise that Jane Harman also has close ties to AIPAC and its Bush administration supporters
It’s nice to see so many concerned about clean government. It’s a shame they weren’t concerned about their own party’s corruption.
Now they have to invent some for Democrats.
Wow, I realize that this is probably only a tactic in a grand strategy of trying to push the Democrats even further left than they already are by attacking moderates like Obama, but I never thought I’d be quoting Jane Hamsher:
Could be the shortest honeymoon in political history.
That really wasn’t my point Tuco, because I realize that Quake’s point was not exclusively about my comment to this post.
I often describe Oliver’s writing as “talking points” for the reasons I describe above. Quake was attempting to take a swipe at me for using the phrase often on this site, and at the same time convey his annoyance with me personally. But as I go back and read it, it wasn’t necessarily defensive on his part.
Quake- Sorry- I projected Oliver’s seemed defensiveness about it to you. (That’s the “whose?”- from a question he asked me recently about my use of the term.)
Hope my explanation was clear.
What does a “Majority Leader” do when there is a Speaker of the House from that same Party, they’re both crooked, and she promised him the job, if the Dems won, provided they’d cover each others’ asses from being investigated?
Looking for corruption in the Democratic Party is going to be like looking for blunts backstage at a rappers’ concert…
Wouldn’t it have been cool if the Republicans had used their 12 years as majority party in the House to reduce the amount of corruption? Instead, they built the most abused (and abusable) system ever, doling out billions and billions in “earmarks” for their own self-enrichment. (Not to mention twisting the rules in an effort to make the Democrats obsolete.)
Now that the Democrats are the majority, the neocon betwetters are having a fit because there are a few Dems who aren’t squeaky-clean? Get over yourselves. Your distinguished Republican party had twelve fucking years to address the problem and they chose instead to elevate larceny to an art form.
Looking for corruption in the Democratic Party is going to be like looking for blunts backstage at a rappers’ concert…
Yeah, and looking for corruption in the Republican party is like looking for shit in a sewage treatment plant.
“Cue frameone …”
Jesus you’re an idiot Tuco.
Out of one side of your mouth you agree that Alan Mollohan is an example of Dem corruption because he’s “under investigation” by the FBI and out of the other you dismiss any question about Bob Gates’s nomination even though he was a subject of investigation by the Independnet Counsel looking into the Iran-Contra fiasco.
Of course that was almost 20 years ago but if you’re going to let Gates off the hook now, why not Hastings who was acquitted of all charges in court and has since done a respectable job in the House?
I’ll tell you why not. Because you’re a hypocritical hack.
If there are corrupt Dems they should be held accountable but you’re just spewing talking points.
Do.
Not.
Make.
Sarcastic.
References.
To.
Cheney’s.
Heart.
Condition.
Because.
Pedugger.
Says.
It’s.
UGLY.
Dugger | Nov 14, 2006 12:16:12 PM
“Can’t we find at least one Democrat not ethically challenged.”
Wouldn’t it have been cool if the Republicans had used their 12 years as majority party in the House to reduce the amount of corruption?
Sure would have been. Would also have been nice if they had stayed with their “smaller government” and “fiscally conservative” roots. But they didn’t, and got their asses handed to them last week by conservatives and independents who are sick and tired of it.
Now that the Democrats are the majority, the neocon betwetters are having a fit because there are a few Dems who aren’t squeaky-clean? Get over yourselves.
But wasn’t it the Democrats promising the cleanest and most ethical Congress in history? If they follow through on that promise, then hats off to them. However, if they instead line up at the feeding trough as many Republicans did then they’re nothing more than hypocrites. Picking Murtha, who prides himself on bringing home the pork, is not exactly a promising start. By the same token, if the Republicans elect Boehner as minority speaker, it shows that they’ve learned nothing from the election and deserve to wander in the wilderness until they do.
And don’t forget that corruption was the number one issue cited in last week’s exit polls. I think you’ll find that it’s more than just “neocon bedwetters” watching the Democrats closely to see if they follow through on their campaign promises.
Let’s see what we have here, ahall we, frameone?
There’s nothing to let him “off the hook” for.
Could you at least try making this a little bit challenging for me?
Alan Mollohan (D-WV), removed from the House ethics committee and a liar by his own admission
The House used to have an ethics committee? What ever happened to it?
Here’s the bottomline dipshit. There is a discussion going on right now about who should get leadership positions in the House. All of the issues, or rather the single issue, corruption, that you think should be discussed is a part of that debate both publicly and we can assume privately. Democratic and liberal groups are discussing corruption and weighing the records of potential chairs and party leaders. All of this is happening and not a single leadership position has been assigned yet but you’re already accussing the Democratic leadership of hypocrisy as if it was all a done deal: “I for one am certainly glad that the Democrats are “draining the swamp” of corruption on Capitol Hill.”
You do this, even while citing from liberal organizations and publications that are calling attention to this issue and demanding that the right decisions be made.
You are not calling for further investigations into Gates, around whom, allegations continue to swirl and many unansered questions remain. But you are calling for the head of a man who was acruitted in open court of all charges, condemned by a closed committee and then gone on to 20 years of, as far as I know, respectable public service. You don’t ask questions about his experience in the House, you just dredge up charges for which he has already paid a price for and moved on.
Gates has a history of fixing intelligence to fit policy decisions instead of vice versa. You don’t ask whether this is the best man to follow Rumsfeld who became so enamored of his own concocted intelligence that he failed to put in place a single plan for post war Iraq.
You don’t demand the Dems to investigate the corruption and incomeptence of the Bush adminstration, despite your holy roller call to “drain the swamp.” You are not bipartisan in your war on corruption.
No. Instead you look at a party that is undergoing a very public leadership fight in which corruption and integrity may play a crucial determining factor and you act as if it’s a done deal.
You’re a hack. A total hack.
C’mon, Tuco, don’t you know that you have to wait until AFTER it’s official before you can start pointing out the hypocrisy?
Face it frame, Tuco has wiped the floor with you on this issue. Your main position has been that no one should be criticizing the Democrats over the people they’re considering for leadership positions because it’s not yet “a done deal”. How about you join those “liberal organizations and publications that are calling attention to this issue and demanding that the right decisions be made” BEFORE those decisions are actually made?
OW has already made it clear with this post that he really couldn’t care less who’s picked as the Democratic leadership as long as “They’ve got a (D) after their name” because “That’s what matters”. Apparently, to him the “culture of corruption” drumbeat was merely a tool to be used and then discarded once the Democrats were safely back in power.
Jesus you’re an idiot Tuco.
Because you’re a hypocritical hack.
Here’s the bottomline dipshit
You’re a hack. A total hack.
Wrong again moron.
Like everything else, it’s just more fantasy bullshit from an idiot hack.
I mean what an idiot hack hypocrite thing to write.
That makes you a hack moron whiner.
That makes you a hack moron, Tuco. A total hack moron.
Frame, do you really think that calling people “dipshit”, “idiot”, “moron” and the ever-popular “hack” in any way invalidates the points they’re making? At the very least, you should try using a thesaurus.
VRWC, were you surprised, or not, when the Democrats (i.e. American people) swept the House and Senate after The Decider bullshit we’ve been eating for the past 6 years?
VRWC, were you surprised, or not, when the Democrats (i.e. American people) swept the House and Senate after The Decider bullshit we’ve been eating for the past 6 years?
Not at all. I was just as fed up with the corruption, pork and fiscal irresponsibility as anyone else. As I noted in my earlier comment above, I felt the Republicans deserved to have their asses kicked by the American people (who are not all Democrats, by the way). And until they get back to their conservative roots and learn to keep the “business as usual” people like Lott, Boehner and Blunt away from leadership positions, they don’t deserve to be back in power.
until they get back to their conservative roots and learn to keep the “business as usual” people like Lott, Boehner and Blunt away from leadership positions, they don’t deserve to be back in power.
Oh, sweet, sweet irony.
Tuco, BUsh just
renominated Ken Tomlinson for chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
And there’s this:
Can I get a little outrage?
“Your main position has been that no one should be criticizing the Democrats over the people they’re considering for leadership positions because it’s not yet ‘a done deal’.”
No it isn’t. My main argument has been that while the discussion is still open and no one has yet been appointed to anything, Tuco is acting like Pelosi has ALREADY rewarded corruption.
There’s a difference between criticizing the people up for a position and criticizing the Dem leadership as if the decisions had already been made. As Tuco wrote: “I for one am certainly glad that the Democrats are ‘draining the swamp’ of corruption on Capitol Hill.”
My question to Tuco is what powers of prescience have allowed him to know that Dems won’t?
At the same time, Tuco has been totally hypocritical in his criticism of those up for the jobs. He claims a holier than thou, zero tolerance position on corruption, even to the point of reaching back to 20 year old scandals to brand people as corrupt today. This is the standard he holds for Dems but blithely dimsisses when it comes to conservatives. Gates was embroiled in scandal 20 years ago. Where’s the outrage?
I’d like to hear where Tuco stand on the recent Tomlinson nomination. Will he lambast Bush for putting forward such a dubious candidate or it will be more of the same hypocrisy? We’ll see.
“Frame, do you really think that calling people “dipshit”, “idiot”, “moron” and the ever-popular “hack” in any way invalidates the points they’re making?”
I call ‘em like I see ‘em drone.
“And until they get back to their conservative roots …”
Ah yes, the old They-aren’t-really-conservatives -even-though-they-ran-as-conservatives- I-supported-them-as-conservatives -and-when-they-won-we-declared-it -a-victory-for-conservatism ploy.
You know if you guys want to argue that the Republican leadership aren’t really conservatives and never have been, could you please tell us whose been supposedly “keeping us safe” these past years?
Oh, sweet, sweet irony.
WTF are they thinking? Apparently, the Senate Republicans have learned absolutely nothing from last Tuesday’s defeat and have a death-wish to remain in the minority. Maybe some time on the bench will remind them why the voters pulled them out of the game in the first place.
I can only hope the House takes a different approach, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.
Ah yes, the old They-aren’t-really-conservatives -even-though-they-ran-as-conservatives- I-supported-them-as-conservatives -and-when-they-won-we-declared-it -a-victory-for-conservatism ploy.
I didn’t support them, and even if they had somehow won, it would hardly have been a conservative victory. It would been a victory of “business as usual”.
But hey, don’t forget that new myth “the-election-tsunami-of-2006-means-that-America-has-solidly-rejected-conservative-values” that’s going around:
“But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.
This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.
The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic congressman.
Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government’s power of eminent domain.”
Need more? Look no further than these post-election poll results:
…a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing”
That’s more like a tide change than a tsunami.
You know if you guys want to argue that the Republican leadership aren’t really conservatives and never have been, could you please tell us whose been supposedly “keeping us safe” these past years?
Frankly, I’m not really sure who those guys are, since they fell away from conservatism over the last 12 years. All I can tell you is what they haven’t been: Democrats.
“I’m not interested — at this point,” he says of the dangled bribe. “You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t, you know.” Indeed, he acknowledges, even though he needs to be careful — “I expect to be in the [expletive] leadership of the House,” he notes — the money’s awfully tempting. “It’s hard for me to say, just the hell with it.”
Murtha, Godfather of hte Culture of Corruption
“I’m not really sure who those guys are, since they fell away from conservatism over the last 12 years. All I can tell you is what they haven’t been: Democrats.”
Naturally. Are you telling me that we have yet to actually see what conservatives would do to keep us safe?
So everything I’ve been hearing for the last 5 years that Bush’s record proves conservatives are better at national security has been total bullshit?
Awesome, drone. Awesome.
So everything I’ve been hearing for the last 5 years that Bush’s record proves conservatives are better at national security has been total bullshit?
In the last 5 years (post 9/11), there has not been a single terrorist attack taking place in the US. During this same time frame, the Republicans (whether or not they’re still conservatives) have been in power. The Democrats have not been in power.
Draw whatever conclusions you want.
In the last 5 years (post 9/11), there has not been a single terrorist attack taking place in the US. During this same time frame, I have masturbated (whether or not I used my left hand) at least once daily.
Draw whatever conclusions you want.
Also please send money for porn, since apparently it keeps the terrorists from attacking.
Also look up “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
If you want a little outrage, frame, you’re going to have to format your posts a little better.
I was looking for a link to a story about “BUsh” making a nomination, but got a year-old story instead.
Help me put the pieces together. But you still don’t get it. If this guy is dirty, I’ll be the first to blast the appointment.
You, however, are such a knee-jerk defernder of anything with a “D” next to it, you look foolish.
First you go into high dudgeon because I dare suggest that Pelosi might appoint Hastings. Even after it’s quite clear that she’s been telling people that she’s thinking about it.
Then, you defend her in the event she actually does appoint him, with some weak argument about how impeachment and conviction by the Senate is just a mere technicality.
During this same time frame, I have masturbated (whether or not I used my left hand) at least once daily.
Hopefully, not at the same time you’re posting here (I say this because some of your comments seem a little out of whack).
“I was looking for a link to a story about “BUsh” making a nomination, but got a year-old story instead.”
Ya, Tuco, maybe if you stayed up with
current events instead of obsessing over shit that happened 20 years ago you’d have more of a clue.
And I love that “if.” Please by all means, blast away:
Unless you want to tell me that we should give Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, despite what the inspector general’s report said, but we should give no credence to the fact that Hastings was acquitted of all charges in court 20 years ago.
More on Tomlinson from the link:
IF, by some bizarre unforseen chance coming seemingly out of nowhere, Pelosi does happen to randomly pick Murtha as majority leader, this is what the Party of Cleaner Government is getting:
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was “total crap,” but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.
“Even though I think it’s total crap, I’ll vote for it and pass it because that’s what Nancy wants,” Murtha told the Blue Dogs, according to three sources who were at the meeting.
Lip service to ethics and lobbying reform. But remember, Murtha has a (D) after his name, so it’s all A-OK with OW.
However, in all fairness to OW, the rest of the Left blogosphere (here and here) is starting to fall in line behind Murtha as well.
Wow. That reform bill should be called the “The Party’s Over Act of 2006.” It slaps down all kinds of crooked shit that Delay had set up.
Read the bill here. It’s laugh out-loud funny. Sections include: SEC. 503. ENDING 2-DAY WORK WEEKS. and SEC. 504. KNOWING WHAT THE HOUSE IS VOTING ON. And Murtha’s most despised (I’m sure) SEC. 502. CURBING ABUSES OF POWER.
I guess Murtha’s been sucking on the crack pipe of payola for so long, he’s getting the shakes just thinking about getting clean.
Maybe we’ll see him on next week’s Intervention.
but we should give no credence to the fact that Hastings was acquitted of all charges in court 20 years ago.
This is hilarious. Watching people already making excuses for corrupt Democrats in leadership positions. OJ was acquitted too Frame.
Hastings was acquitted of bribery charges in criminal court. But he was impeached and removed from office by the House of Representatives and the Senate on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Hoyer won. How’s Nancy’s credibility looking now?
Alcee, I think you’re history.
Hey, frameone, I responded to your Tomlinson posts, but my response seems to be missing. Maybe I’ll try to re-post later.
Meanwhile, frameone five days ago:
The New York Times today:
Shooting fish in a barrel.
Tuco,
Your response is here in another thread.
“Shooting fish in a barrel.”
Um, dipshit, you “forgot” to quote the actual response from Pelosi’s office:
“OJ was acquitted too Frame.”
Jesus Christ. I guess we should just throw out the whole concept of “presumed innocence” or “innocence” altogether because of OJ fucking Simpson.
You went to trial and were acquitted? Fuck it. You’re still guilty — because of OJ Simpson.
They investigated Bob Gates and but didn’t charge him wiht anything? Fuck it. He’s still guilty because of OJ Simpson.
Tomlinson was investigated, found to have broken the law but no charges were ever filed by the Bush Justice Department? Fuck it. Still guilty because of OJ Simpson.
You guys are a real brain trust.
You need to learn to read slowly and for comprehension, frameone.
Pelosi’s office said that Hastings and Reyes are “vying for the chairmanship,” not that Pelosi is considering both of them. Look up the word “vying” in the dictionary. Hastings and Reyes are the subjects of the verb “vying,” not Pelosi.
And who’s reporting “second hand what they say they were told by an unknown source”?
Are you calling Melvin Watt a liar?
Um, Tuco, Party A telling you what Party B told them is second hand information. You do know what “second hand” means right?
The point being that if it was a done deal, why isn’t Pelosi out there stating her support publicly? If Reyes doesn’t have a chance because Pelosi has already decided, why not end the vying with a public announcement? Pelosi went on record with her support for Murtha, afterall, depsite all the critcism piled on his candidacy.
You’re just stirring up shit because you want to paint Democrats in a particular light, before anything has even been announced or decided.
I’m reserving judgement to see what Pelosi ultimately does. You’ve already judged her. Why? Because you’re a fucking hack. It’s that simple.