Simon Says
Huh? Roger dodger claims John Kerry has abused campaign funding rules to pay for parking tickets on a rented car. So?
Kerry, meanwhile, used presidential campaign funds for a $3,150 tab for Boston Red Sox tickets in July when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park before the Democratic National Convention.
A Federal Election Commission spokesman said congressmen are entitled to pay for parking tickets and other expenses from their campaign funds as long as they were ``campaign-related.''
Is this the best Simon can muster as proof of what moral decay? Unscrupulous campaign tactics? Abuse? This is chump change. I wonder if Tom Delay gets a free pass? Of course he does. Isn't it obvious he should? Republicans are so much more comfortable with hypocrisy as Maureen Dowd says. They don't even see it when it flashes before them on a billboard.
Kerry, meanwhile, used presidential campaign funds for a $3,150 tab for Boston Red Sox tickets in July when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park before the Democratic National Convention.
A Federal Election Commission spokesman said congressmen are entitled to pay for parking tickets and other expenses from their campaign funds as long as they were ``campaign-related.''
Is this the best Simon can muster as proof of what moral decay? Unscrupulous campaign tactics? Abuse? This is chump change. I wonder if Tom Delay gets a free pass? Of course he does. Isn't it obvious he should? Republicans are so much more comfortable with hypocrisy as Maureen Dowd says. They don't even see it when it flashes before them on a billboard.
posted by Mark at 12:41 PM
23 Comments:
since you bring up tom delay getting a free pass, let me refer you to this as an example of the democrats doing the same things delay did.
in addition, the top 5 congressmen taking privately funded trips are democrats. either you are repeating misinformation, or you are intentionally giving democrats a pass and slamming republicans. either way, it makes you the hypocrite.
I'm addressing direct influence on legislation.
"The proposal would have made it more difficult for lawmakers to discipline a colleague for unethical behavior and would have allowed Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to keep his post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury that is looking into his campaign finance practices."
This is not everybody's doing it. Some things are allowed and some aren't. $300 for parking tickets for Kerry but $100K to your wife is equivalant? Give me a break. If you haven't crossed the line you don't abolish the rules in your favor.
you're uninformed, mark. The ethics rules were not changed to protect tom delay, as the democrats keep chanting over and over. the ethics rules were changed so that "Baghdad" Jim McDermott, whom you probably admire, could be investigated by the ethics committee without the democrats stalling it forever with a 5-5 vote. Tom DeLay, on the other hand, wants to clear his name.
The ethics rules were changed so Jim McDermott could be investigated? This is the dumbest argument I have ever heard...
Jim McDermot is not under investigation, he has already been convicted of illegally taping (in 1997) a conversation between house members and leaking the tape to the media. I know. His actions were terrible... trying to let people know what actually happens in the hallowed halls of our elected leaders.
DeLay, on the other hand, accepted campaign contributions from, among others, Westar Energy Inc., in exchange for a legislative quid pro quo. Gee, then there is his strong-arm redistricting scam that led to 7 new Republican seats in congress.
Back to the argument. "the ethics rules were changed so that "Baghdad" Jim McDermott could be investigated by the ethics committee without the democrats stalling it forever with a 5-5 vote."
Huh? The same ethics changes that protect DeLay from investigation, also protect ALL Democrats from investigation - How is this possible?
Republicans voted to change the old rule so that --- AN ethics complaint would AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED unless a MAJORITY of the Ethics panel voted to act on it within 45 days.
Under the old rule, a complaint would AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION unless the panel voted to dismiss it within 45 days.
DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
The Ethics Committee has 10 members, five from each party, meaning that NEITHER PARTY COULD PROVIDE A MAJORITY ON THEIR OWN (under the new rules).
If the rules were NOT changed to PROTECT DeLay, THEN WHY did the Republicans recently rescind the rule in favor of the OLD rule which does not protect Delay... Which means, ALL Democrats are now under the microscope... And, If the Democrats are so concerned about McDermott getting drummed out of congress being that he has already been found guilty by a court of law, WHY have the Democrats supported reinstating the OLD rules?
It is you, John, who is UNINFORMED.
Have you seen his blog Paul? He's one of those Form 180 bong brains. Uninformed? Unbrainwashed. Who the hell do you think you're dealing with here, the level of reasoning found at the $100,000 gang at Simon's? Please, such nonsensical thinking.
It would seem you are correct... I misread the information I had about the rule change and spoke hastily. The rule change would actually protect Jim McDermott as well as Tom DeLay.
However, this doesn't fit with the idea that the rule was changed only to protect DeLay. Why would a rule be changed ostensibly to benefit a Repub, but that would also protect a Democrat and any other hearing permanently delayed by a party-line vote? Especially in light of DeLay's statement saying he looked forward to the ethics committee clearing his name.
In addition, changing the rule to allow dismissal of deadlocked ethics complaints would be more in line with accepted jurisprudence - a grand jury, for example.
btw, mark: you aren't in possession of a superior intellect, although you may believe it to be true. your name-calling only serves to lower your apparent intelligence.
Then you should be aware of what you advertise. That's all I have to go by in an crowded world.
Mark:
Sen. Kerry said he would sign the 180 form on live TV in a response to a question.Now I might be naive but I assume when Kerry said he would sign it I assumed that he meant he would sign it. Now since you have a higher form of wisdom could you explain how I will sign the form actually means I won't sign the form. And since it will only verify everthing that he has stated about his milatary carreer I fail to understand why he wouldn't. He is under no legal obligation to sign it but he said he would. I know politicians have,Democratic and Republicans, have a reputation for saying one thing and then doing another but I thought Kerry was different. It seems simple. Sign it, further dicredit the swift boat vets, end this whole sorry affair. He has the power to end it and keep his word at the same time. What reason would he have not to do it?Kerrry is a honest man, why isn't he keeping his promise?
Because this is a red herring. If it was me I'd tell you to stuff it. Let's face it. No other player including the president has signed this thing. Kerry disclosed the records, but apparently that isn't good enough. If it wasn't that you'd just find something else so it's a no win deal. The swiftnuts have already been proven to be liars. This is a dead horse. They shot dead with their lies. Personally I'd keep you in the dark forever since that's where you prefer to live. The senator may feel the same way.
Mark:
When Kerry was asked the question he could have said, "It's none of your buisness. I served honorably, I was decorated highly, and I am under no legal obligation to sign that form." That would have been a principled answer. That would have ended the controversy. The American people would have been satisfied. But he had to try to be all things to all people. That is why he lost the election. He could not resist saying that he would sign the form when it seems clear that he doen't intend to do it. That is why Clinton is going to eliminate him from the 2008 election by New hampshire.
its no use Anony...
mark doesn't admit when he's wrong. he has a double standard. you cannot reason with him. he will only call you names if you disagree with him.
however, its fun to post your opinion and predict his reaction. it's like cutting a deck of cards with all jokers.
Yeah and I'm awash with jokers here now. As for Clinton eliminating him in NH, if that happens it will be because of her popularity. Kerry lost because 120,000 fearful idiots in Ohio who don't even believe in evolution voted for the charlatan. Almost nobody but the nutjobs care about degrading his service record on negative evidence. Even without signing this form the facts are overwhelmingly against your misguided claims.
The facts against Bush not pulling strings to pull out an honorable discharge are nil. We have the evidence for that since he broke the rules and still got it. If you want to worship fortunate son's like that go ahead, but spare me the regular joe routine.
Kerry's statement will stand until he does it. Did he give a timeframe? I think not.
As far as I'm concerned you people are the reason the country's gone down the tubes in five short years. Nice work rube.
Form 180 is like liberal media bias. It's a Great Explainer for conspiratorial basket cases blinded by ideology. As soon as I see it, like Jay Rosen, I know the light's out and no one is home. Continue marching to the Souza beat.
Mark:
The posts I wrote were simple. Boring, but easy to understand.I made no "claims" about Kerry's service, positive or negative. I did not promote the swift boat claims either. I didn't try to defend Bush's service record. I simply pointed out that Kerry, as he has a tendency to do, finds it very hard to do what he says he will do. Instead of telling Russert to mind his own buisness and ending the question of the 180 form forever, he had to give the impression that he was going to sign the form and release the rest of his milatary record. Russert was just playing gotcha, if he was going to ask the question he should have done it during the election, asking it after the fact was just pilling on. Kerry would have scored major points with people by telling Russert to buzz off and he could have ended the whole issue. But he had to play it both ways. He had to present the image of "I am an open book, I will release everything" when any rube has figured out he isn't going to do it. He only looks stupid by waiting. I have no idea what the contents of the remainder of his milatary files are. Probably just the normal paperwork pile. But just like he screwed up an election he had in the bag he has screwed this up too.
I disagree. He didn't screw up an election in the bag as you claim. The misinformation and lies won out moreso anything he did. The press helped co-opt the liars' position. Very few people are waiting for that record, and without a time frame it's pending.
mark:
This is the exact political tone deafness that sunk Kerry. He would have been smarter to tell Russert to shove it but he didn't. If he say's he is going to do it, do it! All this talk of "time frame" sounds like lame defense lawyer talk. He is not legally bound to release anything.By saying he would and then delaying it he just looks lame. What reason , if he is planning to do it, would he have to wait. If he is not going to do it why would he say he would.Come out and say you changed your mind or get it out there.Politically retarded.
That may be true except this is the least pertinent issue in politics. Only wingnuts give good crap about it. Nobody cares.
I told you anony...
He cannot hear you over his internal leftist monologue. When you speak, he doesn't hear what you say, but he feels threatened. So he reaches in his grab bag of leftist issues and lobs one at you. "bush lied","brainwashed","swift boat","nutjobs","wingnuts","misinformation"... expect more of the same.
Mark:
You introduced form 180 into this thread.Your right, it is hardly the most important issue facing us today. My interest in it is soley as an example of why this man who is so praised for his intellect can't handle the simplest political problem without botching it. His biggest problem is instead of just being himself and dealing honestly with the voting public he is always trying to finese issues. That is why he saw nothing wrong with speaking in front of a Jewish American group and speaking in a favorable fashion about the security fence and then weeks later in front of Arab American group denouncing the wall that Israel was installing seperating Palestine and Israel. This is not nuanced.This is old fashioned political BS. If he had just decided what his political stance on issues were and stuck with them he would have beaten Bush. Many Democratic supporters of Kerry stated afterwards that his stance on the war was muddled and confusing. And that is why he will never be President of the United States.
Issues need to be finessed as opposed to being blatantly misunderstood in Bush's case. Frankly I don't care if you don't like John Kerry. I have no idea where your evidence is from the last two claims either.
All you are is a Kerry troll since I blogged the meeting I had. I understand that. Everyone understands the "I voted for" statement and it's unfortunate that common folk were misled by propagandists. Kerry wouldn't be screwing the public on every issue like Bush is that's for sure and that's the bottom line for me. And he trounced Bush in all three debates. A slight majority would like to led astray by a fumbling rich kid than a smart one. That's really unfortunate for us.
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million, and John Kerry has a net worth of about $165 million to $626 million, which includes his wife's assets.
So, throw your "rich kid" idea in the trash where it belongs. It's stupid.
Kerry married the money. It was in fact Republican money to begin with so let's get our history straight. Bush money came from arms production and sales in WWI. That and banking are the family businesses. It's old money and they're insiders who make inside deals for government defense contracts. Outside of that track they fail as Bush did in business. Failure is good preparation for leading the country into bankruptcy on all fronts.
Kerry was a foot soldier. Bush stayed home and flew when he felt like it, then quit early and got away with it. Let's keep the facts in perspective here.
Post a Comment
<< Home