Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 18, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

GOP LAMENESS WATCH....I'll get around to commenting on the official Democratic plan for battling congressional corruption eventually, but in the meantime I want to draw your attention to what may be the lamest criticism ever of an elected official:

Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive....accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

"Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?" asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Do Republicans really think they're going to score points by accusing Reid of the dastardly sin of using his office to prepare attacks on the opposition? Lee Atwater would be ashamed.

The full quote is here.

Kevin Drum 5:39 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (99)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

One characteristic of the totally brain-damaged and deranged is their total lack of introspection or any sense of irony.

Does this "Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle" line of reasoning even strike them as absurd? Of course not.

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder what Armstrong Williams would have to say about this...

Posted by: josef on January 18, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

This is just another example of the politicization of politics.

Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Think Progress:

QUESTION: There are allegations that we sent people to Syria to be tortured

MCCLELLAN: To Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. Youve never heard of any allegations like that?

MCCLELLAN: No, Ive never heard that one. Thats a new one.

QUESTION: Syria? You havent heard that?

MCCLELLAN: Thats a new one.

QUESTION: Well, I can assure you its been well publicized. My question is

MCCLELLAN: By what, bloggers?

Actually it was reported on page A1 of the Washington Post more than two years ago:

A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.

Its also been reported by the New York Times, the Associated Press, New Yorker Magazine and just about every other major news source in the country.

McClellan himself was asked about in on 2/28/05:

Q Has the President ever issued an order against torture of prisoners? And do we still send prisoners to Syria to be tortured?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has stated publicly that we do not condone torture and that he would never authorize the use of torture. He has made that

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on January 18, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Using a government office for political purposes? Horrors! That's like using a corporate office for business purposes. Isn't that why they exist?!?

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 18, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP issued a press release REPEATING Reid's harshest attack lines? They must have left an intern in charge today.

Posted by: Steve on January 18, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum - Lee Atwater was not an elected Senator. He was a partisan activist, and the taxpayers didn't fund his office.

Harry Reid is an elected Senator, the taxpayers fund his office and staff.

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 18, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Reid is supposed to do his political work at Starbuck's?

Posted by: Anderson on January 18, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Or he could use Tom Delay's office I'm sure some sort of politicking has gone on there.

Posted by: patton on January 18, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Egads! Politicians engaged in politics! Why next thing you know we'll have preachers preaching, doctors doctoring and GOPGregory GOPGregorying.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 18, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I really wanted to make some pithy, asshole comment about this, but res ipsa loquitor, huh?

Must suck to be you today, GOPGregory.

Posted by: Monstertron on January 18, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

Why do I get the impression that the New York Times chose to highlight this particular item on a Republican list precisely because it sounds so harmless?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 18, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory: Harry Reid is an elected Senator, the taxpayers fund his office and staff.

Harry Reid holds a political office to which he was elected.

As such, he necessarily practices politics from that office.

Shocking.

I bet no GOP senator or representative ever prepared partisan documents in their office, not to mention "political" documents, huh, GOPGregory.

What an ass.

Perhaps you could instead talk about the GOP stealing documents off of the computers of Democratic members of Congress, eh?

Now, that's a proper use of one's governmental position!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 18, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I just read the link. The NRSC spokesman claims the Library of Congress is not to be used for partisan activities?

If that is the case, Harry Reid has egg on his face.

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 18, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

"the official Democratic plan for battling congressional corruption..."

Oh, that's an easy one.

"Get control of Congress back so we start getting the goodies again."

It would be interesting if someone went back and tallied up all the "reforms" Congress has enacted over the years, to little real end.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 18, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Why do I get the impression that the New York Times chose to highlight this particular item on a Republican list precisely because it sounds so harmless?

Because you still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Republicans are constantly under siege from a hostile media, while Dems get a free pass.

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

>Harry Reid is an elected Senator, the taxpayers fund his office and staff.

yeah, and i'm sure you feel the same outrage about taxpayers being turned out of informational meetings about social security by the white house and the president, which they funded and whom they pay. not. hypocrite. not to mention campaign trips on airforce 1, partisan political speech on government-funded websites, etc., etc., etc.... next time you want to decry the politicization of politics, do it on some blog comment section where your twisted logic fits in. this is the reality-based community.

Posted by: Suzanne Stephenson on January 18, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, proposed legislation is a political document, so according to GOPGregory and the GOP it can't be prepared in the office of a member of Congress . . .

. . . speeches intended for the floor of the House or the Senate can't be prepared in the offices of the members of Congress, since these are clearly political documents . . .

. . . press releases concerning the views of a member of Congress can't be prepared in the offices of the members of Congress . . .

. . . and Republicans have never used their offices for the above.

Yeah, I'm buying it!

GOPGregory gets the award for lamest comment on the lamest GOP political attack in the last 24 hours.

They both have a lot of competition from other conservatives and GOP attacks.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 18, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory: I just read the link.

So, you opined before you'd read.

Why aren't we surprised!

If that is the case, Harry Reid has egg on his face.

Yeah, and the GOP using taxpayer dollars to print partisan brochures for the president has ostrich eggs all over the GOP's face.

I repeat, what an ass.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory, do you think for yourself, or do you get yourself worked into a lather over whatever the Republicans tell you to get upset about?

Posted by: Constantine on January 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK
Why do I get the impression that the New York Times chose to highlight this particular item on a Republican list precisely because it sounds so harmless?

Because you are mindless partisan hack, and you think everyone else is, too?

Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

I notice that tbrosz is especially fiesty today, across all the threads. I wonder, did his check from the RNC clear or something?

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. Suzanne beat me to it.

Good job.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 18, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Lamest post by Kevin ever.

I guess that Kevin does not understand Politics 101: Senators and staff cannot engage in political activity when I (taxpaying US citizen) am paying for their time. To put it another way, Senators are paid to perform official legislative and representative duties, not to engage in political activity. This souunds odd but is exactly the point these Repubs are making. Kevin certainly knows better than this (well, perhaps not, he has been a bit 'off' lately.)

It certainly is unethical for Senators to pay their staff to engage in political activity. Does Kevin now endorse unethical behavior by our elected Senators? I am amazed that this criticism comes from a person who constantly complains that Bush is politicizing all manner of government institutions. I call that a hypocritical position.

Kevin thinks it is funny that this criticism won't really gain much traction, or be particularly effective. It sure is funny ewhen our elected government officials act unethical - har dee har har. The only reason this criticism won't be efective is because the general public simply does not understand that we don't pay elected officials to engage in politics, we pay them to legislate.

"...It is the Members responsibility ... to observe the general principle that staff are compensated from public funds for their assistance in the Members official legislative and representative duties, rather than for services to the Members political campaign."

"That is, funds appropriated by Congress for an agency or a federal office for official purposes, may not be diverted and used for partisan political campaigns. As the
General Accounting Office explains, Generally speaking, funds appropriated to carry out a
particular program would not be available for political purposes, i.e., for a propaganda effort
designed to aid a political party or candidate. If for no other reason, such an expenditure
would be improper as a use of funds for other than their intended purpose in violation of
31 U.S.C. 1301(a).

Got it now, Kevin?

Posted by: Jerry on January 18, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Good God! What next? Baseball players playing baseball?

Question: Anybody know where the Republicans prepared their "reform" documents?

Posted by: bryrock on January 18, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Why do I get the impression that the New York Times chose to highlight this particular item on a Republican list precisely because it sounds so harmless?

You're right. Now that I think of it, an accusation of preparing political documents in a Congressional office does sound harmless. However, hidden in the depths of this accusation a dark constitutional crisis seethes and struggles against its bonds. I believe it is Article 3 of the constitution that says: All political documents shall be prepared on the third Thursday of each month in the outhouse facility in the small wood between the Executive Mansion and the Houses of Congress. Violators of this rule shall be denied future access to the facility in question, even if this results in violent spasms from "holding it" and despite grave embarrassment accruing to those whose spasms overcome them.

Posted by: Baldrick on January 18, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, is having Republican's in control enough to make you Dems want to reduce the size and influence of government?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 18, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory, do you think for yourself, or do you get yourself worked into a lather over whatever the Republicans tell you to get upset about?

Did someone mention getting into a lather? Hold on, I think I've got my loofah handy....

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly on January 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory: You misunderstood the point of my sarcasm. I meant that Lee Atwater would have been able to come up with a much better attack than this lame little dud.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 18, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

I would suspect that the RNC official based his allegation on an existing statute that prohibits the use of government property for partisan political activity, especially the type that undermines our president and thereby the war on terror.

I am willing to bet that if a proper investigation is conducted, the Democratic senator would be found to have violated a number of laws.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 18, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Help! Explain to your readers what we pay senators and staff to do and why it is unethical to work on political documents or campaigns on the taxpayer's dime in a government office.

politics 101, folks. perhaps not an effective criticism, but perfectly valid.

Posted by: jerry on January 18, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

uh, they're not allowed to use their congressional staff for campaigning but politics is, you know, their job?

Posted by: atrios on January 18, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut - i wouldn't mind drowning the current members in a bathtub...

Posted by: elfranko on January 18, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting if someone went back and tallied up all the "reforms" Congress has enacted over the years, to little real end.
Posted by: tbrosz

... "it would be interesting if someone would ..."

you know, I've noticed this little rhetorical fart pretty often from little tom ... I'm using this opportunity to tell him to just shut the fuck up if he doesn't actually have a point to make, and that he can do his own damn google search if he really, really cared about whatever issue he's attempting to deflect attention towards.

Posted by: Nads on January 18, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I get it.

So Republicans specialize in legislation, while the Democrats specialize in poltics.

Nice self important view you got there.

Posted by: Luther on January 18, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Suzanne - you go, girl!

This is the most retarded thing I have heard the Republicans say in some time (Dubya excepted), and that takes some doing...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 18, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Is this a debate they want to start? I mean, don't all of them do this? Is that ethical? By these standards, all of Congress belongs in the ethics committee.

Posted by: MdtoMN on January 18, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

I am willing to bet that if a proper investigation is conducted, the Democratic senator would be found to have violated a number of laws.

That the senator in question has so abused his power is, to all right-thinking Americans, unacceptable and shameful. Sure, it sounds harmless. But is it really? Consider the shit-spattered hallways of the Capitol itself, after the senator in question simply explodes from the confrontation of peristalsis and the immovable object. tbrosz should be appointed special prosecutor in this dark, sticky matter.

Posted by: Baldrick on January 18, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, there is absolutely nothing that the GOP apologists will not defend. So try this variation on the quote at hand:

"Does Mr. Rove think that using an entire government for political purposes is ethical?" asked anyone who actually wants to see some governing take place.

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

My sense is that the Democrats are just blowing smoke and that they do not want any reforms as any real change in the system will prohibit them from enegaging in the pay for play politics that they have perfected over the decades during which they were in power.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 18, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

It's a joke, right? I mean, is anyone that stupid?

Oh, they are? Oh. And they control all branches of federal government, you say? Really? Well then. Off to the gas-pipe for me!

Posted by: The Tim on January 18, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

No joke, this is the best they can do?

My opponents said I am selling out the American people! I think it's unconscionable that they should write these facts using pens that were provided to them by honest, hardworking taxpayers! What perfidity!

Seriously, if this succeeds, we know the Republic is dead. Because, my God, that's the best defense they can muster? You can't write the truth about us on government paper?

Posted by: theorajones on January 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

You know CN, conservatives have been harping on that issue since FDR saved the nation by helping the poor, civil rights legislation was passed in the Sixties and Seventies, and women's right to be a full and equal citizen has been defended in law.

So tell me, what do you have against freedom and equal opportunity?

Do you want to bring back the days of "Whites Only" drinking fountains, woman kept barefoot and pregnant, and the poor dying in the streets?

I guess so, since you so bitterly complain about the things that eliminated those scourges.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Tbrosz tom is not so little...

www.habitablezone.com/album/TomBrosz/

Looks like a few too many trips to Krispy Kreme.

Also looks like the dork who had few friends in high school who got slammed up against the lockers by the lettermen too many times. Man, is that why these puffed hamsters become republicans? Just like Jonah Goldburg, another zero who never got laid until he was married. Then it's all downhill from there, right T Bores?

Posted by: Not as Worse on January 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

While Kevin is right to point out the unbearable lightness of this particular criticism, what strikes me is the lameness across the board of the Republican counterattack.

They're shooting blanks, folks. All their boys put together can't come up with shit of any description.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 18, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory,

How about that Little Ricky "K Street" Santorum yesterday pinch-hitting for your side. Catkiller Frist chose him to craft ethics and lobbying reform legislation?

The GOP is a bunch of pathetic lying criminal losers. To quote man-on-dog:

"The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it's a good government thing."

Posted by: Mel J on January 18, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

It is fascinating to watch the liberals squirm as soon as it is pointed out that their leaders are just as corrupt as the Republican lawmakers that the democrats so fiercely criticize for being beholden to the lobbyist Abramoff.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 18, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory: You misunderstood the point of my sarcasm. I meant that Lee Atwater would have been able to come up with a much better attack than this lame little dud.

Can someone come up with numbers on how much time Bush spent at that GOP fundraiser in Florida on the day that he spent a few minutes in the unflooded bits of New Orleans.

Remember that if Chimpy McJunket does anything preznitial on a trip, the taxpayer foots the bill for AF1, regardless of how much time he spends raising party money on the same trip.

Posted by: ahem on January 18, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

ROFL!!! That's a "fierce counteroffensive"?

Golly, I'd *hate* to see what a "firey counteroffensive" looks like.

Or worse yet, an "energetic counteroffensive".

LMAO

Posted by: cdj on January 18, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

What's wrong with using government buildings for:

1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

?

Posted by: bryrock on January 18, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Good one, fake tbrosz.

Sometimes I think the only difference between you and the real one is the sincerity.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 18, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Also, Brian Nick? Total Dick.

Posted by: ahem on January 18, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

I guess so, since you so bitterly complain about the things that eliminated those scourges.
You think a large government is needed for civil rights and women voting? I like that. On FDR's New Deal, I'll make a deal; let's go back to social spending levels we had in 1950. I'd be tickled.

But hey, since you appear to enjoy great amounts of government intervention in things, enjoy those Republicans in charge. Tradesports has them 70% to hold the House and Senate in 2006.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 18, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

When I see the vaunted Republican attack machine reduced to its current counteroffensive, you know what I conclude?

Ding Dong, the Witch is dead!

Posted by: frankly0 on January 18, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK
Is this a debate they want to start? I mean, don't all of them do this? Is that ethical? By these standards, all of Congress belongs in the ethics committee.

Yes, but, see, that's their whole focus. See, it works like this. First, they establish that everyone engages in things that if you squint at them in the right light, might be violations of ethics rules. Then they try to portray all possibly-maybe-technically-perhaps ethics violations and all real-clear-bright-line ethics violations, like taking bribes with explicit quid pro quos, as equal. Then they say "ethics violations don't matter, everyone does them in greater or lesser degree, trying to punish them is just Criminalization of Politics™".

Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised at the general lameness of the GOP response myself, especially given that the overall quality of the Democratic reforms is asscake. Impressively written asscake, but asscake nonetheless.

Posted by: Monstertron on January 18, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

On FDR's New Deal, I'll make a deal; let's go back to social spending levels we had in 1950. I'd be tickled.

Does that also mean we can go back to the tax rates of the 1950s? I have a feeling the CEOs running the country wouldn't like that too much.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on January 18, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

"January 14, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Melanie Alvord (202) 224-1028

SENATOR STEVENS ANNOUNCES 2,525 PARTICIPANTS
IN 2002 "OPEN WORLD" PROGRAM
Rule of Law Programming the Focus of January 13-14 Meetings in Washington, D.C.

Senator Ted Stevens announced at the Library of Congress the most successful year to date in the history of the "Open World" Russian Leadership Program. Senator Stevens, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Honorary Chairman of the Board of the Center for Russian Leadership Development, authored the legislation to initiate the "Open World" Program in 1999 to bring emerging Russian leaders to the United States, at the request of Dr. James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress."

Was this political?

Posted by: Luther on January 18, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Tradesports...Teddy Kennedy...Fidel...Dan Rather...Red Chinese...moonbat...Cuba...USSR...grerp! bleep! whiz! FLOP!

Posted by: Random Conspiracy Nut Word Generator on January 18, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, is having Republican's in control enough to make you Dems want to reduce the size and influence of government?

My God, Republicans are stupid. Democrats are opposed to the evils of "big government"--they just don't think that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the evils of "big government" because we have a theory of governance that goes beyond "tax cuts for the rich!"

We think big government is illegal wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, a dismantling of historic checks and balances, lying to the American people about yellowcake to gin 'em up for a pointless war that wins you an election cycle. We think it's putting incompetent cronies in charge of critical government functions like disaster response (cough, Katrina), torture, attempting to eliminate habeas corpus, enormous giveaways to pharmaceutical companies and energy producers, illegal secrecy and refusal to be held accountable to the American people, "privatization" that's nothing but payola to supporters (cough, Halliburton's no-bid contracts?). We think big government is unconstititutional Presidential 'signing statements,' it's forcing people to stay on life support who don't want to, taking off poor people who do want to stay on life support, having government decide instead of doctors and women when an abortion is needed, letting industries write the legislation that's supposed to protect Americans' health from these industries...we think that's big government.

Republicans LOVE big government. You just don't like responsible government. That's why you hate Social Security and love George Bush and this Republican Congress.

Posted by: theorajones on January 18, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Luther:

"Was this political?"

Umm, no. This was an event that related to the Open World legislation. See, that's what we pay them to do, legislate.

Posted by: jerry on January 18, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

I have also heard rumors that Senator Reid uses money obtained from campaign contributions to finance political propaganda.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on January 18, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

theorajones,

tell me what state/district you are running in and I will move there and vote for you!

Posted by: bryrock on January 18, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

How about using taxpayer-funded helicopters to hop from campaign event to campaign event?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/24/content_385105.htm

Posted by: Ken C. on January 18, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

I have also heard rumors that Senator Reid uses money obtained from campaign contributions to finance political propaganda.

And I have heard rumors that Senator Frist uses campaign contributions to finance the abortions of every HCA candystriper he's knocked up.

See how easy it is when you don't have to back yourself up?

Posted by: Waldo Robertmann on January 18, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

What a great defense of Reid's unethical behavior: They do it, too!

Wrong is wrong is wrong - doesn't matter if one side does it or both do it.

Posted by: jerry on January 18, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

And I have heard rumors that Senator Frist uses campaign contributions to finance the abortions of every HCA candystriper he's knocked up.

Really? I've heard that Senator Frist shakes down campaign contributions from Republican bigwigs using blackmail photos of them getting sodomized by White House correspondent/male whore Jeff Gannon.

Say, this is easy!

Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

CN take your whole bankroll and put it on that line.unless your chicken!

Posted by: patton on January 18, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

Reid is obviously unethical. The ethical way to prepare the legislation to reform congress would have been to ask lobbyists to write it.

Posted by: yep on January 18, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, is having Republican's in control enough to make you Dems want to reduce the size and influence of government?

Oh, I see the plan now...

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."
- P.J. O'Rourke

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

If that is the case, Harry Reid has egg on his face.

could you be any dumber?

Posted by: cleek on January 18, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan and Robert, I think that propaganda thing was a joke. The argument being that every candidate running for political office produces what is by definition propaganda, financed by his or her contributors.

Which brings to mind Geroge Bush's wonderful "you have to say things over and over...you've got to kind of catapult the propaganda" statement. I am still amazed that the media was snookered into painting Al Gore as the deceitful bastard in that race. Um, Al hated campaigning but liked governing. You'll note the fellow who won is sort of the opposite...

Posted by: theorajones on January 18, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, do you really believe that government is less involved in markets and society under the Bush administration? please tell me you don't believe that.

Posted by: Dan-O on January 18, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, Dems announce their new proposed legislation in front of LIC, and its political.

A Repub lauds the success of his passed legislation from 4 years prior in front of LIC, and he's just doing his job.

Yep, not politics there.

Posted by: Luther on January 18, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, c'mon. Everyone breaks the law. Why just the other day, I saw Mrs. McGiverty jaywalking.

Posted by: Jack the Ripper on January 18, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

what i can't believe is the utter lameness of the repubs on this thread. i mean can anyone you -- jerry, tbrosz, et al -- explain to me how any action (other than eating lunch or taking a crap) by an elected official can be considered anything other than political? "concerned with government, state or politics" is how webster's defines the word. i are you desperate or just plain stupid? actually i know the answer to that..

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 18, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

We can digitally reproduce Claude Rains to play this guy in the movie.

Posted by: stupid git on January 18, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Rove must be down with the flu.

Posted by: Boronx on January 18, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Claude Rains"

Except Captain Renault was being sarcastic -
SARCHASM: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Posted by: stupid git on January 18, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

And you're thinking the Repugs prepared their reforms...WHERE???? In Little Ricky's bedchamber? Guess this is "political" because it's a REPUBLICAN SCANDAL! Wouldn't just want to reform Congress because it needs it...nah, that wouldn't "serve the people"...not that I think any of them will anyhow. What really galls me is that EVERYONE (except, apparently the Speaker of the House) knew about Abramoff and that this was coming down for MONTHS...yet, it took an indictment to make anyone give a rat's ass about reform...WAKE UP PEOPLES!!!

Posted by: Dancer on January 18, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, it's wrong to use the Library of Congress for political purposes but it's ok to use an aircraft carrier? As I remember, the carrier where Dubya did his 'mission accomplished' farce had to sail around an extra four hours and manuver so San Diego harbor wouldn't be in the background for the photos of Dubya. How much extra fuel did that take? On the other hand, putting fifty extra warm bodies in the Library of Congress in January SAVES a smidge on the heating bill.

Posted by: duvidil on January 18, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Except for the President's overarching power to do whatever he wants to, we're a government of laws, not of men.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 18, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

In a time of war, the Senate Minority Leader has the constitutional authority, even an obligation, to do whatever it takes to protect our country. No mere statute can ammend that mandate.

Posted by: Boronx on January 18, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Mission Accomplished did not cost the taxpayers a single penny. It was all picked up by cronies and Jack Abromoff.

Posted by: annon on January 18, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Selling Washington

Corruption has always been present in Washington, but in recent years it has become more sophisticated, pervasive, and blatant than ever..."There are no restraints now; business groups and lobbyists are going crazythey're in every room on Capitol Hill writing the legislation. You can't move on the Hill without giving money."
.........................
"We don't want nonideological people on K Street, we want conservative activist Republicans on K Street." - Grover Norquist

http://tinyurl.com/9q9pv

Posted by: annon II on January 18, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

From the mouth of the GOP anointed ethics reformer Man-On-Dog Santorum:

"I think I laid out a track record of reform that maybe with the exception of John McCain on the Republican side is unmatched by any other senator. I think I have done more to reform the House and Senate than just about anybody in this place and I was the logical person to go to."

Posted by: Mel J on January 18, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jerry, above, is correct with his Politics 101 comments. Elected representatives have to keep two offices and two staffs to maintain separation between the work they do for the people and the policial work they do.

Let's say I decide to run for Congress and I want Harry Reid to endorse me. I call his office. If the office I call is his government office, they will refuse to discuss the matter with me and will refer me to his campaign office. Making a political endorsement is a purely political activity, and therefore it's an activity that can't take place in a government office on government time.

The line between what can be done in a government office versus a campaign office is sometimes fuzzy, though. Brian Nick describes something Reid wrote on the taxpayer's dime. He evidently thinks this type of activity is an example of something that must legally be done from the campaign office. Though I haven't seen the memo he refers to, it appears to me that Nick's accusation is without merit. OTOH, producing a memo like this probably does start to cross the line of an activity that's prohibited. It's not something that was written for a clear political purpose, but there's a political tone to it.

That's what Nick is so upset about.

Posted by: G. Jones on January 18, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Mission Accomplished did not cost the taxpayers a single penny. It was all picked up by cronies and Jack Abromoff.

I call bullshit on that one.

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile, the cronyism gravy train keeps on chugging

Posted by: craigie on January 18, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

This is a much, much worse ethical lapse than, say, the day-trading coming out of Rep. DeLay's and Sen. Frist's office.

No one was making any money in Sen. Reid's office, and that's all by itself an implied criticism of our capitalist system.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on January 18, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

faketbrosz:

I am willing to bet that if a proper investigation is conducted, the Democratic senator would be found to have violated a number of laws.

If enough "proper investigations" were conducted, there would be about twelve people left in Congress.

nads:

you know, I've noticed this little rhetorical fart pretty often from little tom ... I'm using this opportunity to tell him to just shut the fuck up if he doesn't actually have a point to make, and that he can do his own damn google search if he really, really cared about whatever issue he's attempting to deflect attention towards.

Speaking as one who actually DOES a Google search once in a while as opposed to simply writing down whatever happens to flow out their hindbrain:

Anybody older than twenty already knows that there is a long history of "reforms" attempting to divorce monetary influence from power, and I'm not inspired enough to go look them all up. Among the most recent is the asinine McCain-Feingold bill. How's that working so far?

In the context of this thread and especially the one below, it's something that should be taken into account.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 19, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

So what's your excuse for Frist's Santorum pick? A virtual case of fellatio? Or maybe not?

It's very tragic and disgusting at the same time.

Like reading about child molesters.

Posted by: Mel J on January 19, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Among the most recent is the asinine McCain-Feingold bill. How's that working so far?

why don't you ask George "I was against it before I was for it" W Bush ?

Posted by: cleek on January 19, 2006 at 7:43 AM | PERMALINK

Why do I get the impression that the New York Times chose to highlight this particular item on a Republican list precisely because it sounds so harmless?

Because you're a crank?

Posted by: Gregory on January 19, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, tbrosz and rdw . . .

Donations made personally by Abramoff in the same period went entirely to Republicans. Abramoff was a Pioneer-level donator to President Bush's re-election campaign, meaning he raised at least $100,000. The White House has given $6,000 of Abramoff's donations to charity.

Conservatives can now quit lying about how Dems are as tied to Abramoff as the GOP.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 19, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
Heh, is having Republican's in control enough to make you Dems want to reduce the size and influence of government?

Heh, is having the Republican's in control and drastically increasing the size and influence of the federal government enough to make you want to vote them out of office?

On FDR's New Deal, I'll make a deal; let's go back to social spending levels we had in 1950. I'd be tickled.

If we go back to defense spending levels we had in 1950, I'd be tickled. Same for interest payments on the federal debt.

Posted by: Edo on January 19, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Looks as if everyone who defended Reid in this case was FLAT OUT WROING. Reid has apologized:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled ``Republican Abuse of Power.''

``The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,'' Reid said in a letter.

``I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.''

Reid came under attack Wednesday over the report, which was issued by his staff on Senate letterhead, even as he and fellow Democrats released ethics overhaul proposals.

``Researching, compiling and distributing what amounts to nothing more than a campaign ad on the taxpayers dime raises serious ethical questions,'' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of the lawmakers named.

Posted by: jerry on January 19, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK
手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃 网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

手机铃声免费手机铃声下载三星手机铃声下载手机自编铃声MP3手机铃声移动手机铃声下载联通手机铃声免费铃声下载和弦铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声下载NOKIA铃声下载小灵通铃声下载真人铃声MP3铃声下载自编铃声联通铃声下载TCL铃声飞利浦铃声特效铃声搞笑铃声MIDI铃声铃声图片MMF铃声下载手机图片三星手机手机报价诺基亚手机手机美容手机游戏彩屏手机手机大全手机论坛手机号码查询摩托罗拉手机飞利浦手机手机维修MP3手机免费手机点歌手机短信免费短信搞笑短信短信笑话祝福短信情人节短信手机彩信彩信图片免费彩信下载三星彩信联通彩信移动彩信手机彩铃免费彩铃下载移动彩铃联通彩铃12530彩铃小灵通彩铃
网络游戏免费游戏下载小游戏在线游戏游戏外挂游戏论坛游戏点卡联众游戏泡泡堂游戏游戏攻略FLASH游戏单机游戏下载美女美女图片美女写真美女论坛性感美女美女走光街头走光走光照片免费电影下载免费在线电影免费电影在线观看小电影免费成人电影免费激情电影电影论坛PP点点通电影下载BT电影下载免费三级电影爱情电影舒淇电影韩国电影周星驰电影流行音乐免费音乐下载音乐在线在线音乐古典音乐音乐试听MP3音乐MP3下载MP3播放器MP3随身听免费MP3歌曲下载QQ下载申请QQQQ幻想外挂QQ表情QQ挂机珊瑚虫QQQQ头像QQ游戏QQ空间代码QQ个性签名网络小说玄幻小说成人小说爱情小说小说下载金庸小说武侠小说聊天室语音聊天室列车时刻表

Posted by: 免费电影 on January 20, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hey are you guys still accepting commments here?

Posted by: Riverbelle on January 20, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly