Here's another example of how blogs can be a great outlet for objective reporting, even if the outlet in question is traditionally biased to the Left.
[Update (18:26 EDT): NewsBusters' own Warner Todd Huston wrote about congressional travel expenses 10 days ago.]
At the "Anderson Cooper 360" blog, CNN correspondent Drew Griffin took a look at "Spring break travel... Congress-style.":
Flying in military jets is especially important when our leaders need to go to Iraq, or remote parts of Africa, Afghanistan -- places that are hard to get to or dangerous to visit.
But the Virgin Islands, Trinidad, London? At $10,000 a flight hour, those places are where some of your representatives took these military planes over spring break.The bill for Rep. Barney Frank's flight to London and Brussels was $160,000.00. He could have flown his entire group business class for about half the cost. But his spokesman said flying the military charter made the transportation a lot easier.
That's the same reason Rep. Bennie Thompson's delegation didn't fly commercial. They made lots of stops: Mexico, Honduras, the Virgin Islands and Key West. That's a tough itinerary if you have to travel commercially. The cost of the flights: $130,000.00
My only gripe, Griffin left out the party affiliation for Frank (D-Mass.) and Thompson (D-Miss.), nor did he note their leadership roles in the Democratic caucus. Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Thompson as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Funny how those "D"
May 21, 2007 - 17:07 ET by TeamcheeserFunny how those "D"s get left out...
Another case of do as we say, not as we do.
Teamcheeser - Funny how the r
May 22, 2007 - 07:02 ET by ding7777Teamcheeser - Funny how the report left out the Republicans who were along on the trips - House guidelines stipulate that delegations include members of both parties to qualify for military planes -
Good thing we suppress thir
May 22, 2007 - 07:11 ET by sarcasmoGood thing we suppress third parties that would gum-up the works by acting like Ron Paul & taking 0 of these junkets...Yeah, that holy "2 party system" enshrined in the Constitution has sure done us a lot of good....
JMR
Sarc, the last time I checked
May 22, 2007 - 08:06 ET by dscottSarc, the last time I checked, Ron Paul was not a third party candidate, he is in fact registered as a Republican. That may change in the future. Come to think of it, given his stance on Iraq, I might suggest he leave the Repub Party or be ejected - anyone who says or implies we deserved 911 is a mental case. As far as I am concerned he needs to be given the boot.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I never said he was, althou
May 22, 2007 - 08:12 ET by sarcasmoI never said he was, although I voted for him under a (repressed, just as I said) third party ticket the last time he ran. I said that, even as a Republican, he practices what he preaches. Others who get more of a microphone for their preachin' might just be able to learn from Ron's behavior. And he never said we deserved 9/11. He merely said US policy -- like the entire Clinton decade, or Clinton AND Bush-league kissing up (literally...) to a Saudi dictator -- sure as hell didn't prevent it. You people who argue Slick did nothing to stop 9/11 can not have it both ways in the present debate about what Ron actually-said (which nobody seems to want to quote because they're too damn busy trying to misrepresent it, as you have) and I'm sure you want Ron out of the debate, but it ain't happenin', so you'll need to find another tactic.
JMR
Sarc, I noted on another thre
May 22, 2007 - 09:04 ET by dscottSarc, I noted on another thread when discussing the debates regarding Ron Paul's statement as both true and false. Ron Paul made absolutely no clarifications as to his intent when it came to BJ Clinton's incompetence, if he had, I would agree with him 100% on why 911 occured. Clinton invited 911 by his failure to persue terrorism as a national security issue and outright cowardice in Somalia (if one can not stomach death, they have no business deploying the military, this is not a tea party or rhetorical debate), which is totally opposite of what Bush has done. No other tactic is necessary, when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul doesn't know what he is talking about. That's fine for being a Congressmen but not POTUS.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
He spoke specifically (in t
May 22, 2007 - 10:09 ET by sarcasmoHe spoke specifically (in the case of Ron, YouTube is your friend) of "the decade before" 9/11, which effectively referenced Clinton along with the Bush pre-9/11 Vacation-era for me, but -- unlike some ex-presidents these days, I guess -- my favored candidate prefers not to directly reference other Presidents by name when referencing policy differences. Possibly it's a vestige of knowing the House rules of debate, I'm not sure, but the efforts made to deliberately misinterpret his words strike me as the panic of people who fear saying 'sarcasmo was right' someday. Ron Paul has said we should declare wars and fight them to win. If what Bush has done in Iraq so far is fighting to win, I'd hate to see fighting to lose...
JMR
"Ron Paul has said we
May 22, 2007 - 10:18 ET by MightyMouth"Ron Paul has said we should declare wars and fight them to win"
Yes, but has he even hinted at a war that he as president would have declared?
I suspect, with Paul's isolationalist tendencies, there may not be ANYTHING worth going to war for.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Irrelevant, he's never even
May 22, 2007 - 10:24 ET by sarcasmoIrrelevant, he's never even been asked afaik, but one "here's a clue, use it!" hint might be Ron's vote FOR the Afghanistan effort to get Bin Laden right after 9/11...Or does that not-count due to (fill in the logic-impaired blank, my imagination's not as good as you-people's!)
JMR
Then why didn't he introduc
May 22, 2007 - 10:29 ET by MightyMouthThen why didn't he introduce or suggest a declaration of WAR to congress? After all he is such a warmonger and all. Is that enough logic for your blank imagination?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
He suggested it, go read
May 22, 2007 - 10:32 ET by sarcasmoHe suggested it, go read his weekly column from the time. The point was effectively getting Bin Laden, do you actually think he has NOT been involved in enough 434 to 1 votes? Name another congesscritter with half as many, if you can... And your vivid (but occasionally BS-filled) imagination continues to impress me, but not in a positive way.
JMR
"Ron Paul has said we
May 22, 2007 - 10:51 ET by MightyMouth"Ron Paul has said we should declare wars and fight them to win"
Seems contradictory when voting for a measure that authorizes the United States to invade Afghanistan without delcaring WAR. He could have at least put up a fuss and demanded a declaration of war. Or is this a new stance of Ron Pauls since that vote? Sounds to me like it is a typical soundbite coming from a typical politician.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'll help you, since you ap
May 22, 2007 - 10:56 ET by sarcasmoI'll help you, since you apparently didn't click the link.
As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the "entangling alliances" another President George – George Washington – warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter.
America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters
to war.
...
It goes on, but I think you get the point. He's lots of things, but he's no typical politician.
JMR
What is needed, however, is
May 22, 2007 - 11:43 ET by MightyMouthWhat is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war.
And Ron Paul introduced such a declaration when?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Who knows? If you're intere
May 22, 2007 - 11:46 ET by sarcasmoWho knows? If you're interested, go research it yourself, I've done enough of your reading for you already in this thread.
JMR
I did research, He didn't d
May 22, 2007 - 11:47 ET by MightyMouthI did research, He didn't do it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Wow, record time. I SINCERE
May 22, 2007 - 11:51 ET by sarcasmoWow, record time. I SINCERELY doubt you've read all or any of the bills Dr. Paul introduced plus my comment in one minute, but again, my point was his vote for the Afghanistan operation to go get Bin Laden. Find another congresscritter that has introduced even 1/10th as much pro-liberty legislation, your objection here is to his existence, apparently, rather than his views. Tough.
JMR
Well, here you go
May 22, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Mr. BishopHere. October 3, 2002.
However, I must admit, that reading here, I see that Paul has one point behind his attempt at a declaration -- Congress would be held responsible for action or inaction, as well as the good and the bad. I suppose that is the biggest reason the Democrats wanted to avoid a declaration of war -- their own accountability. To avoid this, they refused to declare a war.
That is about the only accurate thing in that press release from Paul.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
He did call for a declarati
May 22, 2007 - 11:59 ET by MightyMouthHe did call for a declaration for Iraq, and then voted not to go when no delcaration was forthcoming, which is consistant WRT Iraq. But Afghanistan was different, that's why I asked you if this was a new position of his re: going to war in general. I still think his Isolationist tendencies would have kept us out of both countries had he been prez.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
ding - I recall the original
May 22, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Karmading - I recall the original CNN story stating that there were no Republicans on Rep. Franks' trip.
This includes taking 6 Democr
May 22, 2007 - 10:12 ET by NL207This includes taking 6 Democrats and one Republican? Very bipartisan and representative of the actual division in the House, don't you think?
"Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress"
Nice cheese, Ding.
Republicans [sic] who were al
May 22, 2007 - 10:29 ET by dahliatravers< Edit: wrong thread. Please pass the ginseng tea. >
Ding, It's nice to see you've
May 22, 2007 - 11:18 ET by TeamcheeserDing,
It's nice to see you've developed the Alan Colmes style of debate. Every time a lib gets caught doing something wrong, there's old Alan ready to point out how Duke Cunningham did this or Rudy got divorced etc., etc., ad nauseum.
My point, Ding, was that the person who wrote the article and mentioned specific names failed to mention their party affiliation. Happens all the time with those pesky "D"s.
At least ONE of these MSM guy
May 21, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Warner Todd HustonAt least ONE of these MSM guys are finally reporting on this. I put the story on Newsbusters a while ago.
Come on, Ken....We all know w
May 21, 2007 - 18:28 ET by BlondeCome on, Ken....
We all know what security issues there are in Mexico, Honduras, the V.I., and Key West.
I bet they couldn't even land a military jet at Key West....they probably had to land at Boca Chica, where they'd get their due as VIPs. Their continued misuse of military assests, while publicly trying to pull the rug out from under our military by unfunding them....I just don't have the words for it.
Perhaps if the military defunded VIP flights immediately, they might get a funding bill through. I believe we're five weeks away from no paychecks for the troops, and these idiots are jaunting around the Carribean.
Hypocrite One-Niner-Six cleared to on runway Nine, welcome to elite idiot land.
Blonde...There may actually b
May 21, 2007 - 18:38 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
There may actually be a good reason for our reps to go to the Virgin Islands. A long time ago there was a joke going around about how politicians were going to clean up the prostitute problems in our major cities. One suggestion was to round up all the hookers and send them to the Virgin Islands for recycling.
Our reps may just want to check on progress!
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
Clear,Well, you know....it's
May 21, 2007 - 18:46 ET by BlondeClear,
Well, you know....it's so off the beaten path to get to the Virgin Islands, Mexio, and Key West (probably they didn't want to go public aviation because you have to fly on little planes....scary for these big pols! Lovely flight, though, may do it again week after next).
My point about them jetting around while not reauthorizing funding for the troops in-threatre just puts a point on their hypocricy,
They are all so busy playing politics with everything and anything....and I just heard Hillary wants to provide $10B for 4 year olds....which she'll fund by "closing tax loopholes and defunding Bush programs she doesn't like". Shes gonna take that money....
BTW...how's your project going? Please post us an update on your thread.
Blonde...Will do.Help a wound
May 21, 2007 - 18:53 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
Will do.
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
You forgot to check if the DC
May 22, 2007 - 09:01 ET by Senior ChiefYou forgot to check if the DC madam-pimp was onboard, was she? She has all the names of prosties sent to VI for recycling and the names of the big wigs onboard those military lifts...
Plus think of all the global
May 21, 2007 - 19:40 ET by ArchConservativePlus think of all the global warming it produces and the carbon footprinting. Oh the humanity!
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
Just paint the planes GREEN d
May 21, 2007 - 23:36 ET by upcountrywaterJust paint the planes GREEN duh
It would be interesting to
May 22, 2007 - 02:47 ET by sarcasmoIt would be interesting to see a list of all 535 names in the House & Senate with taxpayer-travel expenses beside each one. Of course, that would require actual journalism instead of what we're seeing these days. I can tell you that true fiscal conservatives know of one congresscritter who's spent $0 in the military jet travel-junket category because he practices what he preaches...
JMR
I like Ron Paul, but I saw th
May 22, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberI like Ron Paul, but I saw this and wondered to myself: 'this guy can't pay his credit card on time, let alone use one?" How fiscally-responsible is that?
Huh?? I don't see anything
May 22, 2007 - 10:51 ET by sarcasmoHuh?? I don't see anything about a late payment, and the credit card category says nothing about what he bought. I wonder, would you say the same thing once Newt runs about his bounced "House Bank" checks and fiscal responsibility?? Ron bounced 0 checks, you know. Not one.
JMR
" CREDIT CARD SE
May 22, 2007 - 10:56 ET by MightyMouth"
CREDIT CARD SETTLEMENT FEE"
That means the credit card company settled for less than was owed. Newt doesn't have anything to do with it. You really are off your game over this Ron Paul guy sarc.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm surprised if this is tr
May 22, 2007 - 10:59 ET by sarcasmoI'm surprised if this is true, but I have a feeling there's more to the story. Campaigns like his can't exactly do that and get away with it, and he's gotten enough contributions and spent little-enough that I suspect there's a back-story. But let's see. If it's as bad as Newt's check scandal (which has yet to be proved!) then I'll say he's no more qualified for the Presidency than Newt, which will drive folks here crazy I'm sure...
JMR
I just KNEW you would use, as
May 22, 2007 - 11:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberI just KNEW you would use, as your defense, both the "uhhh, I do not believe it" AND "well, YOUR side is worse!" excuses.
Are you sure you're not a liberal?