From the monthly archives:

January 2007

Dumb President? or Clever Speech Writers?

by Joseph on January 31, 2007 · Comments

George W. Bush will never get an award from Toastmasters International for his public speaking skills.  But that’s part of his appeal, I suppose, to the American public.   It’s the kind of thing that makes him seem like one of us.

I always thought his speech writers deserved an award though for their ability to compose easy to read and recite speeches on relatively complicated topics.  (note: this online tool may have offered them some help)

So when I read this story about the president refering to the “Democrat-controlled Congress” rather than the Democratic Congress, and all of the questions it raised with the White House Press- I started wondering if it was just another dumb mistake by the president or, like the ”Axis of Evil” speech and the”Clear Skies” initiative, another example of the smart use of language by his clever staff.

Anyway, here is the article- you can be the judge…
Is it ‘Democratic’ or ‘Democrat’ Party?
by John Gizzi
Posted Jan 30, 2007

A lot of my friends are dumbfounded when I tell them some of the things that we discuss at the off-camera, early morning “gaggles” (briefings) by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.

Yesterday, at a gaggle that lasted less than thirty minutes, we must have spent five-to-10 minutes on Democrats being “bothered,” as veteran CBS radio correspondent Mark Knoller put it when he raised the issue, by the President referring to the “Democrat-controlled Congress” rather than the Democratic Congress.

“I want to thank everybody for making three mountains out of a molehill,” fired back Snow, “When we asked him about it, he said, ‘What? No, I didn’t mean anything by it.’”

Snow went on to point out that the President came out and “makes a gracious gesture to Nancy Pelosi. He spends an entire speech talking about reaching out and working together, and a few people who apparently haven’t gotten the message run out and they complain that the letters ‘I C’ were missing from Democratic. That looks like an exercise in looking for a fence rather than looking for a way to work together. The President has made it very clear that there’s a lot of work to be done and both parties can work together. The State of the Union was aimed at a series of issues where there ought to be common interest and also common benefit in getting the job done. These are issues that Americans [sic] want to see something accomplished.

“So, let me just repeat, that there was no intentional slight of anyone. As a matter of fact, if you look at the tone and the way he conducted the speech, from the very beginning, through the very end, that was designed as an exercise to say to the American people: ‘You know what? Let’s stop committing petty politics. Let’s stop looking for silly fights and let’s look to get the people’s business done in a way that can give them reassurance that Washington is not a place that’s going to be paralyzed.”

But the Fourth Estate was not going to be deterred. Ann Compton of ABC Radio asked Snow if he was aware that the “Week Ahead” paper put out by his office also left the “IC” off its references to the Democratic Congress?

“No,” replied Snow.

Another reporter asked if the President was aware the reference to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party” was a slur against Democrats and has been used in this manner for more than thirty years?

A slightly irritated Snow shot back that “what I’m actually telling you is that this is something that he wasn’t even aware of and you guys are trying to pick a fight that doesn’t even exist. So what I would say is, is it appropriate to try to make a mountain out of a molehill? Only if you really need to.

“If you want to do a roster of name-calling, I would challenge you to go back and look at every characterization of the President and ask that question to people who have used it [sic] against him, because you are going to find that this is a President who has tried to stay away from the business of doing slurs and there was none intended. As a Republican president, he is going to be meeting with Democrats. That is a demonstration of good will. I think what you ought to do is take a look at the actions rather than try to take umbrage at what was something that was an unintentional failure to read two letters at the end of a word.”

The New York Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg then jumped in the fray and questioned Snow again whether the President was unaware this is a slur at the Democratic Party historically.

By now, Snow had had it: “He just doesn’t think anything of it. . .It wasn’t delivered. I’m not putting him on the coach. Come on, you guys. Why don’t you ask yourselves if you want to build a constructive atmosphere in Washington, why don’t you think about the substance of the address? It will make you work a little more, but it’s probably more constructive.

He then closed the meeting with “I’m not going to touch it.”

There you have it: your Fourth Estate at work.

A Footnote: My friend Martha Kumar, a historian who is a regular participant in the White House briefings, referred me to a history of ‘Democrat Party’ as a term of contempt. It’s a long history. The farthest historians have traced the term is to the Oxford English Dictionary of 1890, which has a passage: “Whether a little farmer. . .is going to rule the Democrat Party of America.” The same history notes that the term has been used to specifically refer to the big-city machines of the party, which Republicans considered un-democratic, and was employed by Herbert Hoover in 1932, Minnesota Gov. Harold Stassen in 1940, Ohio Sen. Robert A. Taft in 1948, and Dwight Eisenhower and Sen. Joe McCarthy (R.-Wisc.) in the 1950s.

{ 3 comments }

Bob Ney has no sense of ethics

by Brian on January 31, 2007 · Comments

Seriously. How else can you explain this?

Former Rep. Bob Ney kept his wife on his congressional campaign payroll through the end of last year, even though he dropped out of the race in early August, a report filed yesterday shows.

Elizabeth Ney was one of several campaign staff members who received paychecks in August, according to a Federal Elections Commission report.

But she was the lone recipient of a campaign salary through the rest of the year, getting about $850 every two weeks. Since the end of August, Mrs. Ney has been paid more than $6,800, according to her husband’s report.

You’ve already pled guilty to corruption charges, and you continue to pay a salary to a family member on a campaign that’s already ended? Either he honestly doesn’t realize how terrible that sounds, or he just stopped caring.

{ 0 comments }

Proof Of A Poll’s Propensity To Predict Presidential Elections Precarious, At Best

by Joseph on January 31, 2007 · Comments

“Well, it’s just like – they’re people I work with, and our job is being popular and shit.” – Winona Ryder in Heathers.

 

Polls measure popularity.  Period.

 

They don’t predict presidential primaries any more than they predict elections.  That’s because they involve people.   Real people.  People who watch TV.  People who read the paper.  People with horrible memories of high school or wonderfully improbable dreams of the future.  People who can and more-than-likely will, without any notice, without any reason, change their mind.

(I dare anyone out there to defend the accuracy of a poll taken nearly two years prior to a presidential election.)

Still, they keep coming.   Poll after poll.  These polls are, if nothing else (like accurate), quite popular.

Certainly the popularity of these presidential polls can be partially attributed to an interest in what other people are thinking.  But, primarily, the popularity of polling is the product of two particular properties.

  1. polls are simple/inexpensive to conduct
  2. polls are, compared to other methods of prediction, easy to understand.   

The problem with polls is much more general- and is the same problem faced by all popularity contests:  the winner depends entirely on who you ask.  Here are some recent examples…

 

AMERICANS

The latest Newsweek poll was based on interviews with 1003 American Voters- who selected Clinton (followed by Obama then Edwards) and Giuliani (followed by McCain then Romney) as the likely nominees.

 

OHIOANS
The Quinnipiac poll released today was based on interviews with 1,305 Ohio Voters.  It shows Clinton (38%) in the lead for the Democratic nomination- followed by Obama (13%) and Edwards (11%).   On the Republican side, Ohioans like Giuliani (30%) , McCain (22%) and  Gingrich (11%)

 

OHIO BLOGGERS – LEFT
A recent poll on BSB, based on votes from 197 lefty bloggers, shows strong support for Edwards (31%) followed by Obama (14%), Gore (11%) and Clinton (10%).

 

OHIO BLOGGERS – RIGHT 
The results over at RAB, based on 311 votes from conservative bloggers, have Giuliani (21%) with a slight lead over Gingrich (18%) followed by Ron Paul (13%).

 

See what I mean?

{ 0 comments }

Joe Biden officially in the race for the Presidency tomorrow…

by Brian on January 30, 2007 · Comments

That is all.

{ 2 comments }

Bush’s Silence Isn’t A Sign of Intelligence?!

by Joseph on January 30, 2007 · Comments

While researching the 2000 presidential election, I came across this great article from the Washington Post…

Silent George W.
by Richard Cohen

Washington Post – June 1, 1999  

Stop the presses!

George W. Bush has taken a position. This most extraordinary and rare turn of events followed the release of a House committee report alleging long-term Chinese espionage and the filching of just about every nuclear secret of the United States. Bush found the Clinton administration culpable, which, indeed, it seems to be. Other Republican presidential candidates said more or less the same thing.

This sign of political-intellectual activity in Austin is like getting a radio signal from outer space: Is there intelligent life out there? So far, the signs from Texas have not been encouraging. Where other candidates issue position papers, Bush essentially issues non-position ones.

This has been especially true on foreign policy. The Texas governor took his own sweet time to say what he thought about NATO’s bombing of Kosovo which was, more or less, that he supported our fighting men and women. This falls a bit short of any Churchillian standard but it is better than continuing to insist that since this was not a matter before the Texas legislature, he would say nothing about it.

Similarly, Bush took no position on the gun control measure passed by the Senate. This bill, which had dominated the headlines and had stemmed from the shootings at Littleton, Colo., could not have taken Bush by surprise, yet he had nothing to say. What’s more, you could make the argument — not all that far-fetched, actually — that there are both guns and high schools in Texas, and that the state’s governor ought to have an opinion about a bill that affects both. Amazingly, Bush did not.

Bush also had nothing to say about hate-crime legislation, hardly an obscure issue. This is a pity, since hate-crime legislation is almost always a bad idea — it’s the crime, not the hate that should matter — and it would have been good for Bush to speak out.

The irony, of course, is that the less Bush says, the more people seem to like him. He has become the virtual GOP presidential nominee by acclamation, endorsed by 16 of his fellow GOP governors and preferred by 51 percent of all Republicans in a recent Newsweek poll. This is an astounding figure when you consider the number of candidates in the race. A plurality is one thing, a majority is something else again.

What’s more, the totally imaginary Bush beats the very real Al Gore in every poll you can name. Bush beats the vice president 51 to 42 in another Newsweek poll and even scores higher in voter confidence when it comes to foreign affairs. When you consider that Bush probably cannot spell half the countries that Gore has visited, it either goes to show that most Americans are idiots or — as your mother may have told you — silence is golden.

Sooner or later, of course, Silent George is going to have to talk. He is going to have to articulate his positions and explain what he means by “compassionate conservatism.” More to the point, he might actually have to explain to some of his very conservative opponents what he meant when he said, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.”

For me, that is answer enough, but Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Robert Smith and Alan Keyes, cultural conservatives all, might want some details. Are we talking drugs and, if so, what kind — and, while we are at it, how young is young?

“I am not going to talk about what I did as a child,” Bush recently told the Wall Street Journal. We may find that he had, as many men do, an extended childhood. Henry Hyde, you will recall, had a “youthful indiscretion” in his early forties.

What’s extraordinary about Bush is the extent to which he is associated with no particular issue. He is the leader of no faction, and he would stump anyone on a word association test: Bush and . . . ? Nothing comes to mind.

The Bush camp evidently thinks that a good thing. They are wrong. When he finally does open his mouth, he is sure to disappoint some people. He will go from being an imaginary figure to a real politician. To compensate, he will need supporters who will stick with him no matter what — the interest groups and committed ideologues who share something special with him. In Bush’s case, it’s hard to say what that will be. He stands for nothing other than winning — and that, especially in the ideologically fractious primaries, can be a prescription for losing.

{ 0 comments }

King George eying the title of Emperor

by Brian on January 30, 2007 · Comments

In the New York Times…King George

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

So, other than the obvious benefit of politicizing policy decisions, why might he want to do this?

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush

Ah yes. Those pesky burdensome federal regulations, designed to protect the people from the side effects of pursuing excessive profit margins. You say putting lead back in paint will help you make a few extra pennies? What were we ever thinking regulating the lead content of paint!?!?

Remember, our government is supposed to be one of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not for corporations.

(HT to our friends in A-Town, The Chief Source.)

{ 0 comments }

You have no idea what you’re doing, do you?

by Brian on January 30, 2007 · Comments

I’ll come right out and say it. We are one of the highest per-capita energy consumers on the planet, and we are completely oblivious to what is going on in the world.

In North America which is the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions, 84% say they are aware of global warming, but less than half of them (43%) consider it’s a very serious problem. More worrying, 13% of North Americans said they had never heard or read anything about global warming and one in ten consumers said it was “not a serious problem at all.”

Our ignorance is not solitary. Just look at the august list of those least aware of the world climate!

The three lowest countries globally in terms of awareness were the UAE, where 16 percent of respondents said that they had not heard of global warming, followed by the US (13%) and Malaysia (11%).

Wait, there’s more!

One out of eight North Americans (12%) – the highest majority globally, thought global warming is caused by natural changes in the climate.

But there is some hope. At least the world’s biggest developing economies are aware of the problem – and thus more likely to do something about it.

“Those who believe global warming is a result of human actions are more likely to make changes to save the environment,” said Dodd. “In this case, its gratifying to see that those who believe that global warming is caused by human activities are the Chinese (73%) followed by 70% of Brazilians – two of the largest world developing economies.

{ 0 comments }

The Real McCain

by Brian on January 29, 2007 · Comments

Ouch.

Personally, my opinion of McCain went into the crapper in 2004. You can see more at TheRealMcCain.com.

{ 2 comments }

Bush SOTU word clouds

by Brian on January 29, 2007 · Comments

A nice comparison of Bush’s SOTU speeches in word-cloud form. You can pick up some interesting trends…

{ 0 comments }

Reality has a liberal bias

by Brian on January 29, 2007 · Comments

Not just here in the States, but in Iraq too!

The Shiite Muslim leadership has informally recommended to ministerial and parliamentary delegations heading to Washington that they cultivate closer relationships with Democrats as well as Republicans.

Many pointed out advantages to the Democrats’ increased sway over Iraq policy. Government officials said they had generally found the Democratic position on handing over security to Iraqi forces sooner rather than later closer to theirs. Almost all agree on Democratic Party initiatives, squashed when Republicans controlled Congress, to prevent the building of permanent U.S. bases here. They note news reports of Democrats acknowledging the suffering of the Iraqi population.

“I see that the Democratic ideas are more related to reality,” said Ammar Tuma, a lawmaker who serves in Maliki’s ruling Shiite coalition. “They talk about the real problems that the Iraqis are facing every day.”

To date, government officials said, they’ve also found Democratic visitors such as Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois less parochial, more culturally sensitive and more willing to listen to Iraqi concerns than Republicans.

“Before, Bush used to order Iraqi officials to do this and that,” said one member of Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The Republicans were dictating the political process in Iraq. With the Democrats in control of Congress, the Republicans are now less influential than before. It helps us in a sense to breathe a bit more and to have more freedom.”

Bush and his dreams of authoritarian empire. Just two more years, and hopefully we’ll have an adult running this country again.

{ 0 comments }

Nassssty Padgett-es!

by Brian on January 29, 2007 · Comments

Brian Rothenberg has an update on The Legend of Joy Padgett: Bankruptcy Court.

Remember the curious case of Joy Padgett’s Bankruptcy Abuse from last Fall. Or for those of you in eastern and central Ohio, the memorable Joy Padgett for Congress commercial where she is standing like Julie Andrews — sound-of-music like — on the family farm.

Some of you may have known that at the time she pirouetted on her TV farm, she didn’t even own the family farm having transferred ownership as part of her bankruptcy case. And during the campaign that questionable transfer became embroiled in allegations that it was fraudulent by the people she owed – her creditors.

Well, sure enough, Joy is running from creditors in ‘them there hills.’ After the music from November’s election, with visions of DC fading before her eyes, the trustee overseeing Joy Padgett’s bankruptcy proceedings filed an objection to Padgett’s proposed re-payment plan. The objection was based on several problems, including a need for “further documentation and explanation as to why property is not a fraudulent transfer.”

Of course, his title his hilarious: “THE HILLS ARE ALIVE WITH THE SOUNDS OF JOYOUS PADGETTRY”

{ 0 comments }

Loyalty Oaths and Dear Leader

by Brian on January 26, 2007 · Comments

Right-wing authoritarianism is scary.

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Yes, that’s right. Unabashed blacklisting of anyone willing to question the President. Our friends at Weapons of Mass Discussion, NixGuy, and RABid have all signed The Pledge. That means that these people think Chuck Hagel’s pleading for open and honest discussion is treasonous.

Glenn Greenwald hits a home run on this one.

UPDATE: I suppose I should point out that this all started with a carefully phrased question from Joe Lieberman:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, “That’s correct, sir.”

It is not coincidental that Lieberman so closely tracked the treason language in the Constitution. His goal is to clearly smear those who would oppose the surge as bad policy with the label “traitor”. For all I care, Lieberman can go rot.

So suck on this one wingnuts – a post from the unabashedly liberal bloggers at Plunderbund praising a Republican and slamming a Democrat. We don’t carry water for any party.

{ 3 comments }

Scott Pullins Files Lawsuit Against Screen Name

by Joseph on January 25, 2007 · Comments

Here is a great story from the dispatch about Scott Pullins trying to sue Miriam St. Jean for being a ‘cyberstalker’.

It’s like trying to sue one of the bulls after being trampled in the annual ‘running of the bulls’ festival in Pamplona, Spain.

Scott Pullins Is No Hemingway.

You put yourself out there, Scott, now suck it up and take it like a man.

—

KNOX COUNTY LEGAL BATTLE
Feuding pair is example of word wars on Web
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Randy Ludlow
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH 
  
  
Scott Pullins and Miriam St. Jean know of each other only through the Internet — and they don’t like each other much.

Pullins, a conservative Republican lobbyist, lawyer and blogger, says that St. Jean has become a “cyberstalker” by writing nasty things about him on the Internet.

Pullins says St. Jean’s postings on message boards serving the Mount Vernon area cause him severe emotional distress and make him fear for his safety and that of his family. He asked a judge Friday to grant a civil stalking protection order to prohibit St. Jean from using the Internet or other forms of communication to “menace” him.

The Knox County court confrontation underscores a national trend in which those offended by online comments are taking action against their perceived tormentors.

“We want her to stop harassing me and my family,” Pullins said, adding that St. Jean also has mailed false and threatening materials to judges, lawmakers and his clients.

St. Jean will seek dismissal of the petition, saying Pullins has not proved that she is Curious Mind, the screen name of a Pullins-basher who posts on knoxpages.com and mvohio.net.

However, she agrees with the assessment of Curious Mind that Pullins, chairman of the Ohio Taxpayers Association, is “un- ethical and shouldn’t be allowed to practice as a lawyer.”

St. Jean, a former legal secretary turned eBay collectibles seller and Internet crusader, said the comments of Curious Mind are constitutionally protected opinion.

From a parade of lawsuits, bloggers and message-board posters slowly are learning that libel laws that apply to print also apply to Web content.

“The same laws and rules govern offline and online speech,” said Rebecca Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that defends “digital rights.”

The 1996 Communications Decency Act clarified that freedom of speech extends to the Internet and warns that online commentators are legally responsible for what they write.

Many bloggers and messageboard authors falsely think they have free rein to write whatever they want, one expert said.

“The anonymity the Internet allows has emboldened some people to be more strident than they might be if they had their name attached to it,” said Eric Robinson, a lawyer with the Media Law Resource Center in New York City.

Many lawsuits have been filed, but few lead to judgments for plaintiffs because judges give wide latitude to expressions of opinion, he said.

Part of proving defamation requires that a reasonable person believe what was written — a high hurdle because few believe everything they read online, another expert said. The truth remains a defense against libel, and accurate quotation of public records is protected, said Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association. Filing court actions over online content can be counterproductive, he said. Those who sense a slight could find that their filings draw far more attention than they would otherwise get.

The Pullins-St. Jean case is unusual in that it claims harassment instead of libel or defamation, Cox said.

Judge Otho Eyster denied Pullins’ request for an emergency protection order and set a Feb. 22 hearing in Knox County Common Pleas Court.

Pullins said St. Jean has been commenting on his activities and threatening him online since at least June. He does not know why. “I don’t think she likes attorneys,” he said.

Curious Mind, for example, blasted Pullins for implying in his blog last year that Gov. Ted Strickland and his wife are gay.

Pullins went to court last week, shortly after Curious Mind posted excerpts from a public record: a Knox County sheriff’s office report on a domestic violence complaint involving Pullins and his wife.

No charges were filed after Kathy Pullins withdrew her Nov. 17 statement, which the police report said involved threats made over the phone. Mr. Pullins said that deputies were called when his in-laws overreacted to an argument he had with his wife, and that he never threatened her.

The court complaint is the second that Pullins has filed objecting to what others have written or said about him. He is suing state Rep. Tom Collier, R-Mount Vernon, a former political rival, in the Ohio Court of Claims. Pullins says that Collier made libelous statements about him during a newspaper interview.

Collier and his attorneys are seeking to dismiss the suit on grounds that his opinion of Pullins as a “puppet … scoundrel, liar and cheat” is protected as political free speech.
rludlow@dispatch.com

 

 

{ 8 comments }

Medicaid Funding for Abortions is Good for Ohio’s Taxpayers

by Joseph on January 24, 2007 · Comments

The latest round of Anti-abortion legislation passed by Ohio’s General Assembly will end up costing Ohio’s taxpayers billions of dollars.

I find it truly amazing that so many Republicans continue to push the party’s anti-abortion agenda even when it conflicts with the rest of their message.

What happened to fiscal responsibility, lowering the tax burden, and preserving and protecting Ohio’s families?

All of those goals were thrown out the window when they passed this ridiculous piece of legislation that says it is the policy of the state of Ohio “to prefer childbirth over abortion” and, as such, to forbid the use of state money to fund abortions.

This bill will force poor women to find alternative funding to pay for their abortion or force them to actually carry out their unwanted pregnancy to term.

Either way, it will have an immediate negative impact on poor Ohioans- and long-term financial consequences for the state as a whole.

If this short-sighted bill is successful at decreasing the number of abortions in Ohio it will end up INCREASING the number of poor mothers and children in the state – costing Ohio’s taxpayers billions.

Medicaid funding for abortions is cheap compared to the cost of providing ongoing services to low-income Ohio mothers and their un-aborted children (e.g. public health care, child welfare, incarceration, etc.).

For example, “Between 1991 and 2004, there have been more than 271,900 teen births in Ohio, costing taxpayers an estimated $6.9 billion over that period.”

Thankfully, the Democrats are finally getting their chance at the table and, surprisingly, they are proposing some innovative solutions that might just work.

Check out BSB and WLST for a discussion on that topic.

{ 7 comments }

House Approves Weak-Ass Pension Bill

by Joseph on January 23, 2007 · Comments

The US House finally, and unanimously (who is gonna vote against THIS one?), voted to stop paying pensions to its members who are convicted of certain relevant felonies (e.g. bribery).

Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover those already convicted representatives like Bob Ney and, I assume, Youngstown’s own flamboyant (i.e. crazy) James Traficant.

Also- the bill passed by the Senate states that the new rules won’t kick in for another two years (Jan 2, 2009)!.

And if that’s not bad enough- ” both the House and Senate bills would allow the Office of Personnel Management … to award the pensions of convicted lawmakers to their families”

Note to congress: hurry up and schedule your golf trip- and be sure to invite the guy from the Office of Personnel Management.

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries