Calling All Wingnuts

9 Responses to “Not a wingnut”  

1. 1 john x Jun 15th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

   pelosi should have at least waited for Jefferson to be at least indicted before asking him to resign. i hasn’t even been charged yet. talk about party loyalty. republicans stuck to each other no matter what. democrats turn on each other over a headline.

2. 2 john x Jun 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

   pelosi and the rest of the democrats are full of crap. everytime pelosi is asked about pulling out of iraq she never says to just pull out. she always gives some round about answer that implies taking your time and leave when you feel like it (same crap Bush spouts out his anus). If you ask her about impeachment, she never answers further than censureship. get all of them out of office. it’s 3rd party time.

   ps good questions mike.

3. 3 Ezsuds81 Jun 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

   I think she said on TV that they are trying to hold themselves to a higher standard. I don’t see a problem with that, if it is consistently applied. Infact I’d like my party to operate with higher standards than the Republicans. Judging by the actions of Republicans in Congress, that shouldn’t be too difficult.

4. 4 john x Jun 15th, 2006 at 5:31 pm

   Ezsuds81 Jun 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
   2 problems with that are.
   1) it’s not consistently applied. it’s the first time a congressperson has been asked to step down for something he/she hasn’t been charged with. Remember recent allegations of harry reid accepting donations from abramoff’s clients AND recently $1500 boxing tickets. No one asked him to step down from crap.
   2) what if he’s actually innocent? (personally i’m not holding my breathe to that at all). however, since there hasn’t even been charges at this point, it’s nothing more than a headline.
   If she were really trying to hold to hire standards, don’t pick on someone who just happens to be easy. She won’t ask for Bush to step down. She’s been asked several times about impeachment, every time arguing against it. That tells me she’s just playing politics and is only using Jefferson as example cause he’s easy and she can. She’s not serious about cleaning up anything. Just like the war. Mike asks her about removal of troops and listen to her answer in the link. She’s not serious.

5. 5 Ezsuds81 Jun 15th, 2006 at 11:06 pm

   John x wrote:

   “it’s not consistently applied. it’s the first time a congressperson has been asked to step down for something he/she hasn’t been charged with.”
   ————————————-

   From May 25 Washington Post:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052400350.html

   Democrats yesterday released Pelosi’s letter to Jefferson asking him to step down from the Ways and Means Committee “in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus.”
   ————————————-

   This is from less than 2 months ago:

   “Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) temporarily relinquished his position as the top Democrat on the House ethics committee Friday, two weeks after questions surfaced about his financial dealings.

   “I have reluctantly concluded that the interests of both the [ethics] committee and my constituents would best be served by my temporarily stepping aside as ranking member while I deal with this attack,” the West Virginian wrote to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) Friday.

   Pelosi accepted his request in a press release, praising his work and calling the attacks “an attempt to deflect attention from the long list of Republican criminal investigations, indictments, plea agreements, and resignations.”

   Still, it was Pelosi who placed a telephone call to Mollohan Friday morning to ask for his temporary resignation, a Democratic source said.

   http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/041906/mollohan.html
   ——————

   It looks pretty consistent to me!

   ——-

   Regarding Harry Reid:

   I’m sure he was getting plenty of donations from the same clients prior to Abramoff being associated with those clients. I do think by accepting the boxing passes, it created an appearance of impropriety. However since he voted against the interests of the boxing people, there is no quid pro quo.

6. 6 john x Jun 15th, 2006 at 11:50 pm

   Ezsuds81 Jun 15th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
   you apparently didn’t do enough reading. “….Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, a white Democrat who also is under investigation, was allowed to keep his seat on the equally powerful Appropriations Committee.” from CNN Also, “…Mollohan, whose personal finances are being investigated after a complaint filed by a conservative group, stepped down voluntarily from his post on the Ethics Committee, pending resolution of the inquiry.
   So bottom line he was gave up one committee, but wasn’t asked to leave the committee with the most power. Does that seem very consistent?

7. 7 Ezsuds81 Jun 16th, 2006 at 1:13 am

   Here is my point.

   Mollohan was asked by Pelosi to temporarily give up his position on the Ethics committee.He agreed to do so.
   He wasn’t asked to give up ALL his committee assignments.

   If he was asked to give up his assignment on the Appropriations commitee, and agreed, but still was allowed to head the Ethics commitee, I think there would be much more to complain about. (Having some one under an ethical cloud, being the democrat leader on the ethics committee)

   Jefferson was asked by Pelosi, to step down from the Ways and Means committee. He said he would step down only under certain conditions. The Caucus voted to suspend him from the committee.
   He wasn’t asked to give up ALL his committee assignments.

   I don’t see this as a racial issue. It seems to me that Leader Pelosi acted consistently in both matters. It was the response of the individual members, that differed.

   I do agree that the Democrats need to establish rules they will follow in the future, when situations like this occur.
   However; the move toward stricter ethical conduct is a good one.

8. 8 john x Jun 16th, 2006 at 2:50 am

   what you don’t seem see is that even with Mollohan there was inconsistency. and with jefferson it was first that someone was forced out of seat without even being charged. as far as the “racial” issue is conserned. I never said it was a racial issue. read my comments. i complained that it wasn’t consistent. even if it were a racial issue, i don’t think i would waste my time trying to explain racism to someone who probably never experienced it. but that would be another issue altogether. my issue with peloski is that she is inconsistent and in my view suspect. don’t attack your own party when they haven’t been charged yet, while being afraid to do the same with opposite party. and don’t tell use that you want an end to the occupation of iraq but you don’t want to get troops immediately.
   bottom line. 3rd party is needed. dems are full of crap and repubs are worse.

9. 9 Ezsuds81 Jun 16th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

   http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_JEFFERSON?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-16-11-36-10

   House Boots Jefferson From Committee

   The House stripped Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of his committee seat on Friday in an unprecedented action against a lawmaker ensnared in scandal, but not under indictment.

   The move came on a voice vote, without debate, and capped an election-year effort by House Democrats to seize the political high ground on the issue of lawmaker ethics.

   ————

   Now on to other issues.

   Mike thanks for posting this, actually allowing us to hear Leader Pelosi answer questions.

Leave a Reply