Archive for the 'ethics' Category

Just because I gave you money and you did what I wanted doesn’t mean anything!

Feb 27, 2010 in Disappointing Dems, ethics, Politics

Thus is summed up a 305 page report clearing five Democrats and two Republicans on ethics violations for steering federal contracts towards big donors. Yet observe:

In fiscal 2008 alone, the seven lawmakers sponsored $112 million worth of earmarks for clients of the PMA Group while accepting more than $350,000 in contributions from the firm’s lobbyists and its clients, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

A $350,000 investment returns $112 million dollars. How could anybody expect corruption to not occur? They could have spent $600,000, or six million, if they felt it would get better results. It’s practically printing money. And when you can move legislators with money, it’s not difficult to make the bribery legal, so these guys get off scott free.

Principle would expect Democrats to stand against this and fight corruption. Even if these seven were a mere statistical fluke, honorable men who simply held the positions that coincidentally led to piles of campaign cash, there’s work to be done here. But such a result is rather implausible. What’s plausible is that it happened, but it’s not different enough from what’s going on with every other politician who has to run without public financing.

Besides, do we really spend much time agonizing over whether mob bosses pay hit men to kill others, or whether they simply give money to men who kill the ones they hate?


I know it’s rude and unfair to pick on the slow kids but…

Jul 30, 2009 in Clueless Conservatives, ethics, Uncategorized

…can you blame me when they make it so easy?

Iowa’s own village idiot Brian Pickrell posts what he thinks is another concrete example of liberal bias:

Late to the party, as usual, the New York Times wants an investigation of Congressman Murtha. Not because they think he did anything wrong, but because — surprise — they don’t want the Dems to lose the majority next year.

And the left still claims the press isn’t biased in their favor…

Putting aside the fact that the article disingenuously linked to by Iowa’s most infamous Sinatra cover artist makes no personal or favorable judgment either way as to the current majorities enjoyed by the Democratic party in both the House and Senate, the NYT has reported on Murtha’s ethical lapses quite frequently in the past. Quite exhaustively, I might add. A simple Google and/or NYT site search yields the following:

Murtha’s Nephew Named a Lobbyist for Marines

House Heavyweight Feels Threat to Power

Backing Murtha Is Risky for Next House Speaker

Following Mr. Murtha’s Money

Would Electing Murtha Restore the Culture of Corruption?

Democrats Find Ethics Overhaul Elusive in House

Many Say Leadership Race Damages Democrats’ Image

In Race for Majority Leader, Pelosi Risks Early Setback

Uncle Sam and Uncle John

And on and on and on.

All of the above articles have to do with Murtha’s questionable priorities, some of which date back to 2006, so I think it’s fair to say that characterizing the New York Times as “late to the party” is somewhat of a misnomer. In fact, outside of his own personal cadre, John Murtha’s corruption is so legendary one would be hard pressed to find any “liberal media” outlet willing to stand up for the guy.

Now I know standards are pretty low for Republican bloggers. And that as long as you stick to worn out canards like The Librul Media MSM biaS!!! ™ nobody cares what you say. But you’d think that the importance of using a search function now and again to avoid embarrassment would finally sink in. But, in the words of Vonnegut, “so it goes, so it goes”.


Your librul media. Volume XIV.

Feb 22, 2008 in Clueless Conservatives, Election crap, ethics, Uncategorized

It’s been fun watching the media tip-toe around words like “affair” and “infidelity” when it comes to the latest revelations regarding St. McCain and his past associate Vicki Iseman.  The only two angles I’ve been seeing are that his aides were “greatly concerned” about his closeness to Ms. Iseman (as if what his aides think of the situation is the meat and potatoes of the story) and that, even though nothing (may or may not have) happened, whatever is/was/being/may have been implied, it is a smear.

Our local FOX affiliate, FOX 28 out of Cedar Rapids, even felt compelled to air their piece with a snippet from Brent Bozell (?!?!?) castigating the NYT for printing such a vile rumor.

Truth be told, had the NYT published what they had before hot, hunky Romney decided to call it quits it would have undoubtedly caused McCain a lot more problems.  It would have likely cost him the nomination.  If the NYT waited until later on this year it would have done even more damage.

McCain should be thanking his lucky stars that the NYT released this story when it did.