UPDATED: Another Dem ethics crisis with Mollohan?

The first I heard was Matt's snippet on Breaking Blue.

Raw Story has the most detailed piece I can find.

I've just a couple of things:

There's more...

McKinney v Feingold: A Tale of Two Stunts

As I've said several times here, I love the Feingold censure: good for Feingold, good for the party (his fellow Dem senators screwed it up), right on the issue.

Whereas McKinney...

Let's just say that, if Boehner was working her with his foot, she could hardly be doing better for the GOP.

There's more...

Pelosi shows Kossacks she's lost it

If you want to appreciate just how delusional Pelosi (and/or her staff) are, take a squint at her latest Kos post, under the snappy hed The Gloves Are Off.

As some commenter a few dozen down pointed out, that implies that the gloves have been on all this time. And, moreover, that we, the Great Unwashed, have known it all along.

Ain't it the truth?

There's more...

Ethics "Truce" Broken: DeLay To File Ethics Complaint Against McKinney

That's right--the first House member to break the ethics "truce"will be Tom DeLay: Soon-to-retire Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) said today he would file an ethics complaint against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.) for striking a Capitol Police officer should no other House member do so first.

DeLay's comments came during a wide-ranging interview at his Capitol Hill office with reporters, including HUMAN EVENTS Editor Terry Jeffrey.

"If nobody in this House files an ethics charge, I am," DeLay said in response to a question about McKinney. "Her behavior is outrageous. And it's not the only time." Democrats have really dropped the ball on this one, and not just Democrats in the House leadership. Any House member can file an ethics complaint, but they choose not to. Now, of all people, corrupt and cowardly Tom DeLay is somehow going to seize headlines and file an ethics complaint.

Democrats do not just need to win the House. As my friend BooMan was telling me last night, they need new blood that will challenge ossified interests and power structures that will remake our own party as well. The class of 1974 was like that. As BooMan writes: The Class of 1974 was unique. It did not change the leadership of Congress, but rather, it increased the Democratic majorities and infused the Democratic Party with liberals with a zeal for reform. They threw out some of their own Committee Chairmen, enacted campaign finance reform, did thorough investigations of our intelligence agencies, reopened the investigation of the JFK assassination (and deemed it a conspiracy), and passed the FISA act (the law being flouted by Bush today).

At times it seems like the Bush/Cheney administration has made it their mission to undo all the reforms of the Class of 1974. But, for all the people that are frustrated with or have given up on the Democrats in Washington, the lesson of 1974 is that big electoral gains in 2006 will bring change. Not just a change in the leadership of the Congress, but change in the very nature and makeup and agenda of the Democreatic Party. And that is what we need. There are a fairly decent number of Representatives who need ethics complaints filed against them. The vast majority of them are Republicans, but a handful of them are Democrats. We need reformed Democrats who are willing to file ethics challenges against all members who deserve it, regardless of party, regardless of media spin, regardless of retribution that would take place within the caucus. And we are not the only ones who need it--the country needs it too. We need candidates that could make 2006 like 1974.

The mile-wide earmarks loophole in the 'ethics' bill

The aim of S 2349 is, of course, to provide the nation's legislators with enough cover to beat back corrupt Congress charges while ensuring that the most lucrative abuses remain available.

Thus, the Boston Globe on one of the wrinkles in the bill, which

...is meant to control the spiraling number of earmarks -- local projects designed to help a specific industry -- that are often put into bills with no public debate.

The measure would not ban such projects, but it would require lawmakers to disclose any earmarks at least 24 hours before debate begins.

But because the lobbying bill defines earmarks as only non-federal projects, at least 5,283 of the 12,852 earmarks in the 2006 spending bills alone would have been exempt from the rules. This is because the earmarks were funded through federal agencies...

Geddit? A legislator can still work the earmark trick without drawing attention to himself so long as he launders the cash through a Federal agency!

And this was a bill passed by the Senate 90-8.

(Feingold, Kerry and Obama voted against, as did Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe and McCain.

No idea.)

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads