Letters to the Editor
-
In the famous words of The Simpson's Nelson Muntz
HA HA!
That is all.
-
I don't understand
Why can't you use video of something that happened on the House floor? Is it too much like the truth?
-
Murtha has
more courage in his pinky than Schmidt has in her whole neo-con body. As I have posted before, Karma has a way of catching up to all things if we just "Stay the Course"....
-
Blowback can be a.......
These neocons just can't get away from blowback. I hope the strategy works for her.
-
Another chance...
...for a Republican legislator (or any legislator, for that matter) to own their words, accept the condemnation they justly generate and apologize for her mistake...another wasted chance, that is. Anybody else out there sick and tired of public figures (Republican or Democrat) who don't have the common decency to admit when they're wrong and make amends for damage their ill-considered statements caused?
Where I come from the willingness to admit when you screw up, accept the consequences of the mistake and take steps to rectify the wrong you've done is the very foundation, the bedrock, of integrity. Those who can't or won't do so are considered spineless, cowardly connivers, more concerned with self-aggrandizement than with moral fortitude.
Wait a sec...I've just defined the word "politician". My mistake; it looks like Representative Schmidt is behaving correctly after all....
-
SPEAKING of "COWARDS" how is that Jean Schmidt left out GEORGE WAKLER BUSH?
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON?
Give me a Break!
-
Smoking Guns
I'm surprised that campaigns don't use their opponents' words against them more often. Jon Stewart makes a living showing video clips of politicians saying one thing one day and then denying it the next. They once had a clever bit where they had Bush debating Bush using video segments where he directly contradicts himself. The RNC had the public parroting their view that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. The DNC could have responded by showing the Bush vs. Bush debate as a campaign spot and then asking, "Who's the flip-flopper?" And then there are all the brilliant quotes that could be used like: "Iraq will be a cakewalk", "I doubt we'll be in Iraq six months", "Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction", etc. The Republicans can be so easily shown to be intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. The video is there, why isn't it used more often?
-
Jean Schmidt forgot to CALL OUT George Walker Bush as the "COWARD" he is.
To Tim Grieve and the Editor one more time,
Being that King George could have labeled her a "terrorist", as he and Dick know where terrorism begins, real close to the Lincoln Bedroom but not far from "Georges' Cherry Tree", she could have been sent to our "Gulag".
In Theory, Americans are NOT allowed to visit Cuba, but "GITMO" is a possibility by Presidential Decree, without the right to habeaus corpus? In PRACTICE deja vu, for politicos too.
sub sole sub umbra virens
-
hahahahahaha
karma is a bitch.
-
Funny, but...
... is it so crazy to ask an aspiring Representative to follow the ethics guidelines of the House to which he aspires? Does it suddenly only become wrong once he's sworn in?
People ask why there should be a rule, a question which makes sense in panopticon America. But it's actually good that some things be kept private and that some debates be off the record. Otherwise everyone gets too intimidated to ever say what they mean -- and that adds just one more layer of deception to the whole affair.
-
If the house were to begin applying standards of ethics, Jean Schmidt
would have gotten in trouble for calling Murtha a coward.
My questions are more basic than that of Bernard HP Gilroy: I'd like to know how it would be possible for the House to apply its ethics rules to someone who has not been sworn in as a member of that body. Does the House currently have any sort of ethics overseers? If I recall correctly, weren't all of the ethics committee's powers abandoned when the Republicans took over?
Before the House could begin censuring someone who is not one of its own, it would have to begin with those who have sworn to obey its rules (e.g., Jean Schmidt).
-
The panopticon is for everyone
The previous poster makes a valid point - that people often won't speak frankly when their remarks are being recorded or otherwise monitored.
However, in this particular case, that argument doesn't wash. First of all, I gather that the idiotic rantings of Rep. Schmidt were broadcast live on C-Span. Not exactly private there. To the contrary, she was all too eager to grandstand in her American flag blouse (what a patriot!) and do her pathetic best to smear a seasoned war veteran when it suited her interests.
Secondly, why should the deliberative proceedings of our politicians (if that's what you want to politely call the hog-wallow of Washington) be exempt from the panopticon? The powerful feel utterly entitled to constantly spy on the rabble, which is consonant with Congress's habit of exempting itself from laws it passes for everyone else. (This happened under Democrats as well as Republicans.) This is the rare case when society's omnipresent surveillance can be used against our lame-brained taskmasters. Enjoy the rush.
Defeat is too good for Rep. Schmidt. She should be sent to Iraq immediately following the elections with the inadequate body armor and other provisions that her fellow Republicans have seen fit to bestow - or not - on our soldiers. She is an utter disgrace to the country, or what's left of it. It boggles the mind that there many - SO many - just like her.
-
The rule is hollow
If statements of congressmen shouldn't be used against them, why can the RNC use their votes against them?
It's the very reason the GOP led congress floats pointless flag burning and defense of marriage bills; just to use the votes of any Democrat against them in the next election.
Up here in Vermont the GOP candidate Rich Tarrant has been running a TV blitz accusing Bernie Sanders of supporting baby rapers because he voted against a bill titled as defense of children, but actually a trojan horse for an amendment that granted huge tax cuts for the rich.
Stuff like this is happening in most every congressional and democratic race and the Dems are finally getting their chance calling out the GOP incumbents for their support of now disasterous votes on Iraq and the Medicaid Bill.
And, if posting their inane blatherings on the house floor might actually shut a few of these gasbags up, or at least make them think before they speak, so much the better.