|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 11:43:43 GMT -5
Try to discredit scripture by stating there are inaccuracies then when that fails, mischaracterize it to say something that isn't there and finally, bring doubt upon the fact that we have God's words to begin with. "Scripture" has tons of inaccuracies. Easy to find. I didn't mischaracterize the bit about the eunuchs. I have an objective source, the Anglican Theological Review. Some early Christians understood this to mean castration. It may have. Who really knows? The Church developed a position, but Protestants don't believe the Church has any authority. Believe it or not there are other forms of Christianity besides American Evangelicalism. None of which are as valid as the objective scholars who I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 11:52:19 GMT -5
Sure, but you are unable to present objective sources.
All you have is opinion. Your opinion is no more valid than the guy that writes evilbible.com
Now, Anglican Theological Review, now there's a source. If anything I'm going out on a limb by referring to Christian scholars. Agnostic's are the best people to go to on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 11:54:16 GMT -5
thanks for the link, I thought that might be the way the scripture was written and yes it makes much more sense now.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:54:40 GMT -5
Did you read my objective source? findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200204/ai_n9033334I read the link to your "objective" source. He isn't a Bible scholar and the below quote shows me why he isn't one. "Taylor proposes that the literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 is just as likely, given that Jesus' teaching would have appealed most to eunuch slaves, surely the meekest of the blessed meek. But politically, the church fathers had to distance the new religion from the still-thriving pagan cults involving self-castration, which many early Christians, taking Jesus' words literally, practiced too. Taylor gleefully ruffles feathers by identifying Jesus' "radical hostility to heterosexual marriage and reproduction": Among other things, Christ blessed the barren and specifically promised everlasting life to those who forsook their families for him. So, Taylor argues, according to the Gospels, Jesus actually deplored Christian family values. Did he encourage gruesome self-sterilization?"
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 12:00:29 GMT -5
Sure, but you are unable to present objective sources. All you have is opinion. Your opinion is no more valid than the guy that writes evilbible.com Now, Anglican Theological Review, now there's a source. If anything I'm going out on a limb by referring to Christian scholars. Agnostic's are the best people to go to on these issues. Anglican Theological Review is opinion. Agnostics are people that don't know...it would be oxymoronic to go to them in such matters.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 12:17:07 GMT -5
Sure, but you are unable to present objective sources. All you have is opinion. Your opinion is no more valid than the guy that writes evilbible.com Now, Anglican Theological Review, now there's a source. If anything I'm going out on a limb by referring to Christian scholars. Agnostic's are the best people to go to on these issues. Anglican Theological Review is opinion. Agnostics are people that don't know...it would be oxymoronic to go to them in such matters. The Anglican Theological Review is the opinion of learned scholars. Agnostics aren't dogmatic in their opinions. Remember, objective sources are sources that are objective.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 12:28:24 GMT -5
The Anglican Theological Review is the opinion of learned scholars. Agnostics aren't dogmatic in their opinions.
Remember, objective sources are sources that are objective. The opinion of learned scholars is still subject to being wrong. Their position is not correct be default. Agnostics aren't dogmatic in their opinions of not knowing, correct. There is not such a thing as an objective source. There is such a thing as truth and in determining truth, the objectivity of the source is irrelevent. To counter your Anglicans: www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/Christian/Fathers/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-13.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 13:26:31 GMT -5
The Anglican Theological Review is the opinion of learned scholars. Agnostics aren't dogmatic in their opinions.
Remember, objective sources are sources that are objective. The opinion of learned scholars is still subject to being wrong. Their position is not correct be default. Agnostics aren't dogmatic in their opinions of not knowing, correct. There is not such a thing as an objective source. There is such a thing as truth and in determining truth, the objectivity of the source is irrelevent. To counter your Anglicans: www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/Christian/Fathers/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-13.htm Right, that's why I stated this above: "Some early Christians understood this to mean castration. It may have. Who really knows? The Church developed a position, but Protestants don't believe the Church has any authority."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 13:38:54 GMT -5
There is not such a thing as an objective source. There is such a thing as truth and in determining truth, the objectivity of the source is irrelevent. Over and over on this board I have to defend legitimate objective sources against the craziest quacks. These aren't 50/50 issues. If all the smart objective people say one thing and one crazy quack says the opposite these aren't equal assertions. I learned a new word recently. It's called "Truthlikeness." [Truthlikeness] classifies propositions according to their closeness to the truth. It's incredible that this term even needs to exist, but crackpots kept insisting on equal time so the philosophy of science had to come to the rescue.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 13:40:46 GMT -5
in determining truth, the objectivity of the source is irrelevent. Did you mean to write this?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 13:48:40 GMT -5
in determining truth, the objectivity of the source is irrelevent. Did you mean to write this? I wasn't clear. What I meant to convey was that there is only one truth and if a non-objective source espouses the truth, it's objectivity is irrelevent.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 13:52:43 GMT -5
I still stand by my assertion that there are no objective sources of information. I really don't know how to prove that per se but logically, I don't see how there can be non-objective sources of information that is conveyed to the public, whether by an individual or group.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 13:56:41 GMT -5
....perhaps by saying that “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 3, 2007 14:34:57 GMT -5
I cannot believe that we are still questioning blondie's objectivity when it comes to his/her objectively quoting objective sources that are objective...
|
|
|
Post by phi nehas on Apr 3, 2007 14:43:25 GMT -5
WAAAaaaaWAAAWOoooo
"Could I see your objectivity card please."
"But officer, I wa"
"Shut up and show me the card!"
"Let's see....Mr. bamagatr"
"Stay put, I need to run a check on this."
....minutes pass like hours.
"GET OUT OF THE CAR!!"
"I SAID GET OUT OF THE @#$&# CAR NOW!!"
"officer, but what's the prob". ZZZZAPPPP!!!
"Have a taste of my objectivity taser, you lying scum!"
"52 calling in....I have a person faking objectivity in custody on ninth and Al Gore street., requesting an ambulance."
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 3, 2007 17:39:06 GMT -5
I have an objective source, the Anglican Theological Review...... Believe it or not there are other forms of Christianity besides American Evangelicalism. None of which are as valid as the objective scholars who I agree with. Who the hell decided that the Anglican Theological Review was an objective source? Please. Blondie, you say that we don't know the history of Christianity but by making such absurd statements you are really just showing us your ignorance in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 3, 2007 19:48:48 GMT -5
blondie's definition of 'objectivity' is: a source that supports his pre-existing opinion
blondie's definition of subjective is: a source that does NOT support his pre-existing opinion.
Anyone else beginning to feel like you're trapped in "The Argument Clinic"?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 15:42:48 GMT -5
Will the MSM report this one? Nah...after all, it's a DEMOCRAT involved and not a Republican. www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6481599&nav=9qrxRepublicans criticize Pelosi over water development billWASHINGTON Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.
Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away.
Republicans raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House.
Pelosi's measure would authorize 25 (m) million dollars to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.
Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district. Says Congressional Quarterly: Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said “Situations like these are precisely why conservatives have stressed that transparency is the best way to make the system work,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee. “The public can make up their own mind about Speaker Pelosi, the earmark and whether it benefits the businesses that she profits from in the area, but the key is that they are aware of it.”repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier.”
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi’s husband, Paul.
“If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water,” said a senior Republican aide. “I don’t see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them.”
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker’s 2006 financial disclosure forms.
The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms. I'd take only slight issue with the CQ story. The public could make the determination whether Pelosi used her position to enrich herself IF THE MSM REPORTED ON THE STORY. Newsbusters says it best: If Democrats had accused former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) last year of earmarking funds that could help real estate investments owned by his wife, would the media have reported it?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 8, 2007 19:07:11 GMT -5
Yep...the MSM is picking that one up...in that same weary context of "...republicans having nothing better to do..." BS...
If Nancy-poo was a republican, we would be hearing ad nauseum about the "...appearance of impropriety..."
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 22:57:55 GMT -5
Truth be told, I'm not all that angry at the MSM.
After all, covering for Democrat party misdeeds is a service they freely give them.
Like the snake that bites you when you pick it up, you can't blame the MSM for doing what comes naturally to them (I'd use the puppy training analogy, but some find that offensive, however true it happens to be).
No, my ire is aimed squarely at the Republicans for not hammering this home and putting the Democrats on the defensive.
Boehner should stand up in the House and threaten to shut it down if Pelosi isn't investigated over this and other unethical (at best...possibly criminal) acts.
McConnell should do the same in the Senate- threaten to filibuster anything and everything until Reid is thoroughly investigated.
Every single Republican politician in Washingotn should go before the cameras and refuse to discuss anything except the Democrat Culture Of Corruption and demand that Pelosi and Reid resign over their improprieties (and take Jefferson, Murtha and others along with them).
Pelosi, after all, did promise the most ethical Congress in history, didn't she?
I say Republicans demand that she deliver on that particular promise or explain to the American public that she meant to target only Republicans and not Democrats who violate the rules.
I think this idea could get some bipartisan support. After all, if they're too busy investigating each other, then chances are pretty good they won't be figuring out creative ways to reach into our wallets and purses.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 20, 2007 18:24:31 GMT -5
More from the Party that promised "the most ethical Congress in history": www.sweetness-light.com/archive/nancy-pelosi-defends-john-murthas-use-of-threatsPelosi defends Murtha vs. GOP reprimand House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a close Democratic ally whom Republicans want to reprimand for threatening a GOP lawmaker’s spending projects.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had “no idea what actually happened” during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
“What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle,” said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.
“He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side,” she said.
Murtha is a 35-year House veteran who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee on military spending. He is known for a fondness for earmarks — carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favored constituent group.
During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the GOP side to confront Rogers, a former FBI agent. This month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike from an intelligence spending bill an item that would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha’s Pennsylvania district.
According to Rogers’ account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because “you’re not going to get any, now or forever.”
“This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me,” Rogers told The Associated Press on Friday. “He said it loud enough for other people to hear.”
House rules prohibit lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member’s votes…
Rogers said he planned to file a “privileged resolution” Monday that would seek a House vote on whether to reprimand Murtha.
“I wasn’t there” for the confrontation, Pelosi said. “I do know that the Republicans caused quite a stir that was unjustified on the floor of the House, and I’m sure things were said on both sides.” … Several things to comment upon here: Didn't the Democrats campaign on a pledge to rein-in earmarks? Or did that promise extend only to Republican earmarks- ones proposed and supported by Democrats are just peachy. These selfsame Democrats, having run on a pledge to cut earmarks, were going to elect John "ABSCAM Jack" Murtha to their #2 post in the House. Even the Associated Press- heavily in the tank for Democrats- had to admit that Murtha was "fond of earmarks". Didn't Democrats also promise to reutn "comity" to Congressional politics? Dunno about you...but "threats" and "comity" would seem to be mutually exclusive. Didn't Democrats also promise to hold malefactors accountable when it comes to breaking Congressional ethics rules? Well, here's there chance to reprimand a clear violator of ethics rules.....only he happens to be a Democrat. Fat chance of his being found guilty of anything.....hello, Congressman William Jefferson? As was the case of the Clinton Administration, you have to give Democrats great credit for their careful parsing of everything they say. Remember: Clinton promised 'the most ethical Administration' in US history, just as Pelosi promised 'the most ethical Congress' in US history'. Notice that in neither cse did they specify if those ethics would be GOOD or BAD.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 18:34:31 GMT -5
Now, WOMI, you know you're just a "shill" -- give over ;D You mean this Murtha? Lotta good excerpts from this article: In Backing Murtha, Pelosi Draws FireHouse Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha's bid for House majority leader set off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill, with critics charging that she is undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who they say has repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.
Some Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups say they are baffled that Pelosi would go out of her way to back Murtha's candidacy after pledging to make the new 110th Congress the most ethical and corruption-free in history.
"People have known about these things for months," said one Democratic House member who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to anger the presumed incoming speaker.
A senior Pelosi aide conceded that her endorsement is risky but said that she had to show her loyalty to Murtha, who has been steadfastly loyal to her.
The PMA Group has become the go-to firm to approach Murtha as ranking Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, CREW charges. In the 2006 defense appropriations bill, PMA clients reaped at least 60 special provisions, or "earmarks," worth more than $95 million.
The PMA Group and its clients have been top campaign contributors for Murtha: $274,649 in the 2006 campaign cycle, $236,799 in the 2004 cycle and $279,074 in the 2002 cycle, according to CREW's tallies.
After Kit Murtha joined KSA Consulting in 2002, one of his first clients was a wireless networking company called Aeptec Microsystems Inc., which was seeking to build a business complex in Murtha's district with a Pennsylvania state grant. Aeptec executive Michael Hoban contributed $2,000 to Murtha's campaign that year.
In 2004, Murtha helped secure the grant. A few months later, the Appropriations subcommittee approved a $4.2 million earmark for the company.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 10:06:54 GMT -5
Democrats are not the only bad guys WOMI. If my memory serves me correct the Republicans that had the majority congress for 6 years did not roll back one inch of welfare, Gun Control or abortion. Plus they lost their seats in Congress because they "stayed the course" and lost because of it on election day. Just like a "stay the course" Republican candidate will lose the Presidential election.
Picking on liberals is too easy. We should take the beam out of our own eyes before we try to take the forest out of the democrats' eyes.
Ron Paul 2008
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 21, 2007 10:11:08 GMT -5
Democrats are not the only bad guys WOMI. If my memory serves me correct the Republicans that had the majority congress for 6 years did not roll back one inch of welfare, Gun Control or abortion. Plus they lost their seats in Congress because they "stayed the course" and lost because of it on election day. Just like a "stay the course" Republican candidate will lose the Presidential election. Picking on liberals is too easy. We should take the beam out of our own eyes before we try to take the forest out of the democrats' eyes. Ron Paul 2008 Hold on now, Solomon! You know Retreds..oops, Repubs are all God's special children! They do NO WRONG! ;D
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 21, 2007 10:16:15 GMT -5
How about that Time magazine cover with a tear rolling down Reagan's cheek?
The Republicans have blown it!!
And just in case WOMI and Phinehas thinks this makes me happy -- wrong! It makes me angry!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 15:44:12 GMT -5
solomon-
No one- certainly not me- ever said that only Democrats do anything wrong or that Republicans never do anything wrong.
However, to all but the most subjective eye, it is clear that far more attention is given to scandals involving Republican candidates or politicians, or mistakes and missteps made by Republicans than is paid to Democrats making the same, if not worse, mistakes.
Did Brian Williams bother to cover Reid's shady land deals (which continue to this day)?
Has Chris Matthews devoted the same amount of coverage to William "Cold Cash" Jefferson as he did Randy Cunningham?
Has Keith Olberdork even mentioned Pelosi's exclusion of Del Monte workers on Guam from her minimum wage bill because Del Monte is based in her home district and contributes a ton of cash to her and other Democrat's elections?
If it's news that a Republican has ethical problems or violates the law- and damn straight it is- then it should also be news when a Democrat does the same or worse. It's that whole "fair and balanced" thing- a.k.a. "journalistic integrity".
I'll take the "beam out of my own eye" just as soon as the MSM takes the blinders off theirs.
Judging by history, I'm gonna have to learn to live with that beam.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 23, 2007 13:18:10 GMT -5
Well, we have our answer: blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/murtha_vote_breaks_down_on_par.htmlVote on Murtha Along Party Lines -- MostlyAs expected, the House voted largely on party lines dismissing a resolution that would have reprimanded Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for allegedly threatening to deny funding for a Republican House member's district.
The final tally included 219 votes to table the resolution, effectively killing it, with 189 votes against Murtha.
Democrats largely rallied behind Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), while Republicans remained furious that he still had not denied the allegation from Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) that Murtha threatened to deny Rogers any funds from the defense spending bill. Murtha is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, and Rogers alleges Murtha made the threat after Rogers led an effort to strip $23 million from an intelligence bill two weeks ago that would have benefited a center in Murtha's district.
Rogers told reporters afterward that all he wanted was a public apology: "This matter would be going away," he said. Absent the apology he's considering filing a formal complaint with the Committee for Standards of Official Conduct, known unofficially as the ethics committee. "I haven't made up my mind," he said.
Because of the potential ethics case, eight of the 10 members on that evenly divided committee chose to vote "present", while Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), the chairwoman, simply didn't vote at all.
Ethics committee member Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) voted with Murtha to dismiss the Rogers complaint, prompting GOP staff to hint Doyle would have to recuse himself from any Murtha review. (However, Doyle is one of Murtha's closest allies and was probably already too conflicted to sit in judgment of his political patron, should such a case arise.)
The most revealing aspect of the final vote tally might well be those few members who crossed party lines, including those who voted "present". Three Republicans chose their personal relationship with Murtha over party affiliation, while five Democrats from rural districts voted against the anti-war leader. The five Democrats voting to censure Murtha or voting "present" were: * Earl Blumenauer (N.D.): One of just two Democrats to vote "nay" against Murtha, signaling his belief that Murtha crossed a line and should have been reprimanded. * Jim Cooper (Tenn.): The other Democrat to vote "nay", Cooper was an early supporter of Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in his successful race to become majority leader against Murtha. * Jim Matheson (Utah): Voted present. * Heath Shuler (N.C.): Voted present, making Shuler the only freshmen Democrat to not vote "yea". He defeated a longtime incumbent, Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), who he accused allegations of ethical misdeeds. * Vic Snyder (Ark.): Voted present. Like Cooper and Matheson, Snyder publicly supported Hoyer over Murtha for the leader's post. Two primary observations: First, Murtha did not deny that he had made the comment to Mike Rogers, thus he did not even claim to be innocent. Still, the ethically-challenged Democrats- with the few exceptions noted above- chose to sweep the whole matter under the rug. Priceless, especially from a Congress supposedly committed to being "the most ethical in US history'. Also, hats off to the principaled stand on the part of these five Democrats. They've also kissed their political careers goodbye, as there is no doubt but that retribution for their apostasy will be swift, sure and severe. Remember that Steny Hoyer has to exact a promise from Pelosi that neither he nor their supporters would be the targets of retribution at the hands of Murtha.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 10:34:12 GMT -5
And more from our good friend John "ABSCAM Jack" Murtha: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/jack_murthas_friends.htmlJack Murtha's Friends(Robert Novak) WASHINGTON -- Democrats controlling the House of Representatives demonstrated this month the hollowness of their claim that they have ended the corruption of 12 Republican years. Rep. John Murtha quietly slipped into the Intelligence authorization bill two earmarks costing taxpayers $5.5 million. The beneficiary was a contractor headquartered in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown, Pa., whose executives have been generous political contributors to the powerful 17-term congressman.
This scandalous conduct would be unknown except for reforms by the new Democratic majority. But the remodeled system is not sufficiently transparent to expose in a timely manner machinations of Murtha and fellow earmarkers to his colleagues, much less to the public. It took Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the leading House earmark-buster, to discover the truth.
Jack Murtha, the maestro of imposing personal preferences on the appropriations process, looks increasingly like an embarrassment to Congress and the Democratic Party. But there is no Democratic will to curb Murtha, one of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's closest associates. Nor are Republicans eager for a crackdown endangering their own earmarkers.
On May 10, as the Intelligence bill neared passage, Flake took the floor of the House to relate how Capitol Hill works. Told there were no earmarks attached to the bill, a skeptical Flake sought the measure's classified annex but was sent on a wild goose chase for earmarks -- first to the clerk of the House and then to the parliamentarian. When he finally found 26 earmarks, it was five hours after the deadline to submit amendments to the bill. Flake requested a secret session of the House on Intelligence earmarks, but got no support from either party.
Five days later, in a letter to House Republican Leader John Boehner, Flake revealed (without describing them) Murtha's two earmarks for the Johnstown-based Concurrent Technologies. One provides $2.5 million for the Mobile Missile Monitoring and Detection program. The other supplies $3 million for the Joint Intelligence Training & Education with Advanced Distributed Learning Technological Phase II.
Murtha's earmark requests attest (as required by the new reforms) that "neither I nor my spouse had any financial interest" in either project. What he did not attest was that officers and employees of Concurrent Technologies contributed $56,475 to Murtha from the 2000 election cycle to the present. That includes $4,500 from CEO and President Daniel DeVos and $5,000 from Vice President Emil Sarady.
Flake, in his May 15 letter to Boehner, made "another appeal" for House Republicans "to take a more proactive position in opposition to earmarks." The minority leader did not respond. Instead, on May 21, Boehner wrote Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Murtha's $23 million earmark for a National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown was "a questionable project" secured by "highly suspect methods." Indeed, the project was not placed on the earmark list, as required by the new rules. An effort by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan to eliminate this project led to Murtha's notorious threats, in violation of House rules, to eliminate Rogers's own earmarks "now and forever."
In fact, Rogers, a 43-year-old former FBI agent, has 10 current earmarks to protect, costing more $45 million. Flake is a rare Republican who understands that pounding on Democrats will not cure the GOP's earmark addiction. "I am concerned," Flake wrote Boehner, "that the only action taken regarding earmarks by Republicans thus far this year is to ask for clarification of the earmark rules, in order to ensure that we can take full advantage of earmark opportunities." Boehner, who personally does not use earmarks, told me "I can't agree with that." But he did not respond to Flake.
Nor do Democrats show interest in curbing earmarks. Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, Pelosi's hand-picked Intelligence Committee chairman, blamed non-disclosure of earmarks on a mistake by the Government Printing Office. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey first skirted the new rules by claiming no earmarks were contained in the supplemental appropriations. Last week, he decreed that henceforth, earmarks in his bills would not be revealed until a measure passes both the House and Senate. The test for Democrats is what they will do about Murtha now that it is known he rewards contributors with federal funds. Wasn't this the man that Democrats wanted to be their #2 in the House of Representatives? Well, he is proving that he has the right stuff to be #2. The MSM (rightly) extensively covered the travesty that was the earmark process under Republicans. Will they do the same when it is Democrats abusing the system after promising to clean it up?
|
|