Well, the L.A.Times certainly followed the Democratic National Committee's stylebook for reporting the news with this one, it is obvious. In a story about the new "sweeping ethics bill" making its way through Congress this week, they mention all the Republican corruption they can dredge up, but somehow miss every single Democrat example of the same. They also misreport a Nancy Pelosi rules change that makes it seem as if she is a corruption fighter when the truth is that she backed off from the very rule the Times cites as an example of how "ethical" the House is! This one is a perfect example of partisan, agenda driven "reporting," for sure.
So, the L.A.Times gives us the hero Democrat Party who has quashed that "culture of corruption" and cleaned up Congress' "sullied image." Yaaa, Democrats and boo Republicans who are so "corrupt." Read on for some fair-and-balancedness that'll curl yer hair!
WASHINGTON — In what would be the most sweeping overhaul of ethics rules since the Watergate era, the House today gave final approval to a bill aimed at reining in the influence of lobbyists and repairing Congress' sullied image.
Democrats promised to pass it after winning control of Congress following a campaign in which they denounced the Republicans' "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill.
The measure passed the House, 411-8.
Except, look at that number, would you? The Times forgets to mention that the GOP almost to a man supported this effort!
Yet, the Times helpfully finds it must remind us about all those evil Republicans' corruption, of course.
The measure's approval comes as two former Republican congressman, including California's Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff reside behind bars and about a dozen other lawmakers from both parties, including two other California Republicans, have come under scrutiny.
And later they add...
In addition, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) has come under scrutiny for his ties to lobbyists whose clients have received millions of dollars in earmarks from the Appropriations Committee, which he chaired. Rep. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) and his wife, whose home was searched by the FBI earlier this year, are under investigation for their ties to Abramoff.
...and...
And just Monday, federal agents searched the home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) in an investigation into public corruption in his state.
Amazingly there is not one mention of Congressman John Murtha's many ethical troubles, nor a scant line about Democrat congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana, nor a word about Diane Feinstein's ethics troubles. Not word one about a single Democrat ethical lapse made this story.
Amazing how "ethical" the Dems are according to the L.A.Times, eh?
Then we get what amounts to a lie by the L.A. Times:
On the other hand, the House forbade members from flying on corporate jets. Senators and presidential candidates would be permitted to fly on corporate jets but would have to pay charter rates instead of the less costly equivalent of first-class tickets.
The Times makes several lies by omission, here. First of all, the entire report is couched in a focus on the new House with a Democratic majority under Nancy Pelosi (hence their line "Democrats promised to pass it after winning control of Congress"). But, the rules change that the Times is talking about that clamped down on using corporate Jets was passed in January of '07 when the Republicans still controlled the House.
Worse, the Times neglects to mention that since she took over Nancy Pelosi has RELAXED those rules to benefit her Democrat pals in Congress. And still worse, she made that rules change in a vote that happened in the middle of the night when no one was looking last May!
Yeah. It IS amazing how "ethical" the Times thinks the Democrat House of Representatives is. It's a tale that ranks right up there with the "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter," all just as fantastic.
Thanks for the fantasy, L.A. Times.
(hat tip to Newsbuster Mark Johnson)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's a bipartisan culture,
August 1, 2007 - 03:15 ET by sarcasmoIt's a bipartisan culture, as I keep sadly-saying. I'm wondering just how soon it will become impossible for these suspects to vote on spending anymore. That date, for all these perpiticians, is the important one for me, and it sure seems to be going-slowly in the case of "Cold Cash." And maybe, as with drug dealers, this will lead to OTHER charges of corruption if some of these guys "flip." I wouldn't be surprised...
JMR
}}}----> Atty Gen.
August 1, 2007 - 03:30 ET by Cool ArrowAlleged Atty Gen. Roberto Gonzales is positioned so fetally he couldn't come out swinging if he tried.
What's to stop the President (an equal partner in American leadership) from hauling Congress members before a special prosecutor? Nothing but a bunker mentality.
The Dems will never run out of ammo.
Special Prosecutor
August 1, 2007 - 05:04 ET by allanfI was struck how the search of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) home made national headlines. Justice Department investigations seem to target Republicans far more than Democrats. I don't know why the press was invited to snap pictures of the search.
If the Democrats want to continue with a "Culture of Corrpution" theme it might be time to move past the Justice Department infrastructure. Perhaps Special Prosecutors should take a look at Harry Reid's land deals in Nevada and family ties, Diane Feinstein's use of her committee assignement to obtain contracts for her husband, Robert Menendez of NJ.
Who knows, perhaps Special Prosectors committed to "truth and justice" will find criminality that the Justice Department was unable to uncover. We all know that Senators should be above reproach.
Nothing to see here....
August 1, 2007 - 05:27 ET by motherbeltPerhaps Special Prosecutors should take a look at Harry Reid's land
deals in Nevada and family ties, Diane Feinstein's use of her committee
assignement to obtain contracts for her husband, -allanf
They won't, because the media aren't hounding Reid and Feinstein. They went to them and asked what was going on, Harry and Di said "nothing" and they said "Oh, OK."
That's how they do "investigative reporting" with Democrats.
And another thing: why is it that they always go after those who are trying to influence the congressmen, and never the congressmen themselves? Lobbyists would NOT exist if our "public servants" weren't corruptible. I wonder if Hillary's "Public Service Academy" will have a course on how to say NO to lobbyists.
If you want to be more
August 1, 2007 - 05:34 ET by Warner Todd HustonIf you want to be more truthful about lobbyists... they ARE THE PEOPLE!!
Lobbyists represent the businesses we all WORK FOR! Without lobbyists, the interests of the businesses that employs all of us would not be paid much attention to by power hungry politicians!
Lobbyists are working for the people as much as Congress is!
Then why is there such a
August 1, 2007 - 05:42 ET by motherbeltThen why is there such a stink about lobbyists having influence? I'm serious, not trying to be smart-alecky. I understand that lobbyists are trying to get congress to listen to them; why is that wrong?
My comment and I guess my point, was in regard to what they say is "undue" influence...lobbyists offering private jets, etc in exchange for favors. If that is wrong, why don't the cogressmen get in trouble for accepting it?? Why do they just try to stop the lobbyists from offering stuff? Well, we all know the answer to that...it's the same reason they took the candy out of the supermarket checkout lanes.
3 words.
August 1, 2007 - 05:56 ET by sarcasmoI'll give the simple answer nobody wants. "Too much spending."
JMR
Nobody wants? Come on
August 1, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberNobody wants?
Come on Sarc, the drumbeat is getting old.
They talk like they want it,
August 1, 2007 - 08:27 ET by sarcasmoThey talk like they want it, but they don't vote like they want it, or we would not be in this kind of crappy fiscal shape. THAT is what's getting old, and it's getting the level of respect it deserves from me, too.
JMR
I hope that I wasn't seeming
August 1, 2007 - 06:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonI hope that I wasn't seeming to be attacking you. I didn't mean to be.
My point is that Lobbyists are demonized as if they are at fault. But the Lobbyists are only living up to our system. The ACTUAL blame should be on the Congressmen that take undue advantage of lobbyists. Congressmen should be the ones that know what is right. lobbyists are only trying to get favorable rulings for their industry that hired them to be advocates.
Without lobbyists for the industries that we all work for, WE would lose as government would run roughshod over us all even worse than now.
Now, we have ALWAYS had lobbyists to some degree. Even in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison suggest that factions and interests will come to their Congressman to get favors and legislation passed to favor their industries.
But, here is the thing. The reason lobbyists are so reviled by the media today is that government has taken so much power that the efforts of these lobbyists end up effecting the rest of us FAR more than when the Federal govt was weaker. And since they get things done, the media wants to destroy them.
But, rest assured, if govt gave up the power it steals from us via undue and unconstitutional legislation and regulation, lobbyists would have far less power and influence.
In the end, the lobbying problem is all the fault of a power hungry Congress.... and NOT the lobbyists.
IOW, lobbyists have too
August 1, 2007 - 06:49 ET by sarcasmoIOW, lobbyists have too much to sell these days, because there's too much spending. Give them less to sell, and there'd be fewer, less offensive lobbyists instead of what we've seen. The problem we've seen is that talk about cutting spending is a lot easier than actually cutting spending. There's an army of lobbyists arguing for more-spending in DC these days, and almost nobody arguing for less. This has a corrosive effect over time on moral values, IMO .
JMR
... just like I said. It's
August 1, 2007 - 06:53 ET by Warner Todd Huston... just like I said. It's CONGRESS' fault. NOT the lobbyists. All the spending is being done by the Congress
Lobbyists are just along for the ride!
In the end, the lobbying
August 1, 2007 - 09:04 ET by motherbeltIn the end, the lobbying problem is all the fault of a power hungry Congress.... and NOT the lobbyists.---WTH
That was my point; we agree on that. I read somewhere that the reason Bill Gates and Microsoft don't get any favors from congress is that he refused to play the lobbying game: Microsoft has no lobbyists in DC. And he gets penalized for that. If that's true, who is soliciting whom?
I certainly agree, to an
August 1, 2007 - 09:10 ET by KC MulvilleI certainly agree, to an extent, but you're addressing only one side of the lobbyist equation. Lobbyists advocate their cause, but lobbyists also try to limit the damage of investigation. The sheer amount of money, which is perfectly ethical while promoting an issue, becomes an ethical problem when it discourages investigation. If a congressman sponsors a bill for an expensive public project that wastes taxpayer money, it's easy to spot the lobby that spent so much money in persuasion. But when the system as a whole is geared to look the other way, that's harder to prevent.
I can't speak for the rest of America, but that's what bothers me.
I don't know were you shop....
August 1, 2007 - 16:01 ET by SQL_Sam"it's the same reason they took the candy out of the supermarket checkout lanes".
I just went shoping and at our local supermarket - there was candy and gum and mints and soda all next to the checkout lanes! Who is the lobbyist responsible for this!!! </sarc>
BTW
August 1, 2007 - 07:47 ET by mytwocentsBTW, what ever happened to William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D), Louisiana? I guess he wasn't corrupt enough to make the first team.
Didn't even rate a mention
August 1, 2007 - 07:54 ET by Warner Todd HustonDidn't even rate a mention by the leftangeloss times.
Wasn't Pelosi at one point
August 1, 2007 - 07:58 ET by sarcasmoWasn't Pelosi at one point thinking about taking him off some committee? It's amazing they still allow "Dollar Bill" to vote at all.
JMR
Missed It
August 1, 2007 - 08:37 ET by allanfYou may have missed it. The press coverage was not as great as the Ted Stevens search. But Congressman William Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts of bribery and corrpution. Unlike the indictment of Randall "Duke" Cunnigham, this indictment came safely after the election.
Is the Justice Department treating both parties even handedly? Any thoughts?
My thoughts about the
August 1, 2007 - 08:44 ET by sarcasmoMy thoughts about the current state of the "Justice" Dept. aren't printable in a family friendly forum like this one, but thanks for linking to the informative article. It seems to say he's off Ways & Means but still on some other committee and "Dollar Bill" or "Cold Cash" is still voting on everything, sadly. I wish I could express my thoughts on interminable legal delays, but those, too, are unprintable...
JMR
It's no secret the LAT is in
August 1, 2007 - 10:56 ET by rbosqueIt's no secret the LAT is in bed with the dems. More people are starting to wake up. The LAT circulation keeps going down.