Another point if I may:

Since I live in California, WHY do we have to foot
the bill for some $300,000 each time this witch wants to fly home? and besides that, WHY does she
have to have this elaborate plane for herself, her
family and her friends, and further-WHEN is the GOP going to put their foot down to the demands of the Dems, when they are continually at the GOP's throat on a daily basis?

WHY do we have to foot the bill for some $300,000 each time this witch wants to fly home?

Jo,

Could it be that she's not satisfied with her broom? :>)
(Couldn't resist that one.)

Seriously though, while I see your point, I would have no problem with her having the same privileges that Hastert had, if she were to limit herself as he did, such as the type of plane and size and content of entourage (although the cost will increase, since CA is farther from DC than IL is). Trouble is, she doesn't seem inclined to do that, so your complain is quite valid.

Matt,

All very good questions. I welcome the exposing and removing of corruption, both Democratic and Republican, from all branches of government. However, having seen MANY previous examples of right-winger attempts to expose Democratic corruption, I am suspicious that your book will be nothing but a poorly-sourced political hit job filled with more gossip and inuendo than fact.

You say us Democrats should lead by example. Why haven't you led by example? A staggering level of corruption was reached during the last years of total Republican control of government, why didn't you choose to expose THAT corruption? Surely, the sordid tales of Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, David Safavian, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, the Ohio Republican machine, etc. would make for a more interesting book than the stale rehashing of Drudge Report gossip on Hillary, Dean, and Pelosi.

I guess if you did that, though, you couldn't have Tom Delay do a promo blurb for the book, could you?

So my question is why? If you want us liberals to expose our own corruption, why don't you lead by example? Show us how you good, noble, manly Republicans operate, and expose and condemn all of your own skeletons?

Please, do explain.

I second this-
You say us Democrats should lead by example. Why haven't you led by example? A staggering level of corruption was reached during the last years of total Republican control of government, why didn't you choose to expose THAT corruption? Surely, the sordid tales of Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, David Safavian, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, the Ohio Republican machine, etc. would make for a more interesting book than the stale rehashing of Drudge Report gossip on Hillary, Dean, and Pelosi.

I guess if you did that, though, you couldn't have Tom Delay do a promo blurb for the book, could you?

So my question is why? If you want us liberals to expose our own corruption, why don't you lead by example? Show us how you good, noble, manly Republicans operate, and expose and condemn all of your own skeletons?

Yes, we should expose corruption in all its partisan forms, but I have not seen ANY exposing of GOP corruption from the gang here. To the contrary, they have defended every action taken by the now-defunct GOP majority.

Matt, please don't shed your crocodile tears over "partisan glasses" in defending a book attacking the Democratic party. If you really believed a single word you are saying, you would've written a book on the corruption scandals of BOTH parties, not just one.

Party loyalists who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Steve,

Most of the explanation is in the book, so you'll have to buy it when it comes out - DeLay is highlighted, and Abramoff rates a whole chapter. We're not ignoring GOP problems: we're providing balance, so that the whole story of corruption is out there and in the debate.

We doubt many liberals will read it simply because they will be afraid of it - but if you expect hostile reviewers to be able to say that book is poorly sourced, then you are bound for disappointment.

"I am suspicious that your book will be nothing but a poorly-sourced political hit job filled with more gossip and inuendo than fact."

So, you're suspicious that their book will be "a poorly-sourced political hit job filled with more gossip and inuendo than fact..." sounds more like an excuse to dismiss the book before you even read it. One could argue that allegations of corruption against Republican are merely gossip and innuendo.. DeLay hasn't been convicted of a crime. And I would guess you're not going to excuses made for Cunningham, Foley, or Abramoff in their book.

So, why don't you stop making excuses why you likely won't bother reading their book to educate yourself. Sounds to me your excuse is a cover for your fear of reading it.. if you want my opinion. Do you really think Mark and Matt would write a poorly sourced book? Do you think a publisher would invest money in a book that wasn't based on solid facts? Come on SteveGA, you can do better than that.

This is surely a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black? The Bush administration has been the most corrupt presidency in American history, and all you can do to explain it is to say "Oh, but the Democrats are MORE corrupt!"

NEVER in history, despite the fact that most politicians lie plenty, has a president consistantly told untruth after untruth. If he was a certain wooden boy his nose would stretch half way around the world by now. WMD, Iraq Intelligence, Saddam Hussein, Iran intelligence, the state of the union... you name it, Bush has lied about it in one way or another.

I might get this book out of the library for interests sake, and read it (should the library ever bother stocking it) but I certainly wouldn't BUY it. Politics is about lying, period. To try and deflect attention from Bush and his cronies lying with a book saying "But the democrats are MORE corrupt" just doesn't wash.

"One could argue that allegations of corruption against Republican are merely gossip and innuendo."

One would be wrong. There have been indictments and convictions of numerous Republicans (Cunningham, Abramoff, Delay, likely Libby), which is much more substantial than the allegations against Democrats.

"Do you think a publisher would invest money in a book that wasn't based on solid facts?"

Ever heard of James Frey? Or Michelle Malkin? Her book in support of the Japanese internment camps would have made a great, albeit highly controversial, 8th grade paper.

"We're not ignoring GOP problems: we're providing balance, so that the whole story of corruption is out there and in the debate."

Why does there need to be balance? The media isn't in charge of prosecuting corruption, the Justice Department (to a certain degree) is. If you'll remember, the Justice Department is controlled by Republicans. If your book consists of more than "gossip or innuendo," why hasn't Alberto gotten off his behind and prosecuted any Democratic corruption?

My larger question: how can you defend Tom Delay on the grounds that he hasn't been convicted when none of the Democrats (even Jefferson, but who is undoubtedly a crook) have been indicted of anything, much less convicted?

Gar Wood

I think the simplest reason why no one wants to clean house is because they're too busy attacking the other side. Both sides have their bad apples and it isn't until something really bad comes out that we even attempt to get rid of them. The voters don't keep their own politicians accountable and having politicians police themselves is a joke.

Until folks get sick and tired of all this crap on all sides nothing is going to happen.

Gar,

Our contention is that DeLay is completely innocent - based upon the information provided by the prosecutor and his history of political indictments, our judgement is that DeLay has been railroaded...and the indictment will be dropped right after election day, 2008, unless DeLay's lawyers can get it dropped sooner.

Gozer,

True enough, but people can't get tired of it as long as the MSM downplays Democratic corruption, or puts it out as an "everyone does it" sort of story if the corruption becomes too large to ignore.

The first step towards a rational understanding of our political process is to understand that the reporters and editors of the MSM have a vested interest in Democratic victory.

You say us Democrats should lead by example.

Yes, you should, but please--no more examples of your poor grammar, Stevie and Germie. "Us" Democrats? Try "we..."

You forget, Mark, that the rules don't apply to DemocRATs...

Do Democrats realize how stupid they sound when they say that the Bush administration is the most corrupt? Just because they say it doesn't make it true. In case you forgot, the Clinton administration has been well documented as being full of liars and corrupt individuals... oh but that's just "anti-Clinton rhetoric" from the "GOP smear machine" right?

Wake up! You know, the comments here just prove that Democrats don't care about corruption in their own party.. they'd rather just toss out examples of corruption in the Republican Party (some of which is settled, others are accusations only)

End the games you libs! you would do yourself a big favor by reading about the corruption in your party and taking the lead in ridding yourselves of it. All things considered, at least Foley, Ney, and Cunningham are gone. Your party still has all your tainted members in the ranks.

The first step towards a rational understanding of our political process is to understand that the reporters and editors of the MSM have a vested interest in Democratic victory.

Here begins the conspiracy theorizing. "The media is out to get us--oh no!" And you wonder why people take you--and your book--for a joke.

Gozer hit the nail squarely on the head, as he often does. Yet you still tried to dodge it, Noonan. Funny and unsurprising, that.

I believe the above first two posts belong on the
Pelosi plane incident-Not this title page. Could
they please be sent to the proper topic? Thanks

Jo

KCJ wrote:

Do Democrats realize how stupid they sound when they say that the Bush administration is the most corrupt? Just because they say it doesn't make it true. In case you forgot, the Clinton administration has been well documented as being full of liars and corrupt individuals...

But nothing on the scale of Bush. Clinton lied, yes, nobody denies that. But his lies didn't take the country to war, and cost more than 3,000 American lives and countless thousand more Iraqi lies. There IS a difference.

Nobody is "simply saying it". Clinton lied about sexual contacts, and he got impeached for it and removed from office in disgrace. But at the State of the Union speech 2007 Bush was STILL repeating things that have been exposed as false, quoting them as if they were true and worse, trying to use those things to justify his future policies. This has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican - Bush won't listen to EITHER side now, he's made it quite clear that he's "the decider" and this indicates he no longer considers himself Republican OR Democrat, but somehow right in everything he does whether Republicans disagree or whether Democrats disagree.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people still back someone who is in the last throws of destroying the country you all claim to hold so dear. After Gulf War I America had a very strong negotiating stance. Other countries listened when America spoke. Now America is regarded as a loose cannon, potentially likely to invade a country on the flimsiest of reasons, and Iran and Syria are listened to because they are potential big players in their area. This president has destroyed America's worldwide credibility, and is a traitor to the Unites States.

Corruption among officials that, for example, leads to the downfall of a president for promiscuity is a WHOLE different thing from the corruption that costs thousands upon thousands of lives. Why can't you accept that?

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people still back someone who is in the last throws of destroying the country you all claim to hold so dear.

Cue the scary doom music. "Destroying the country", hysterical hyperbole at its finest. All you need to complete the picture are tales of Rovian stormtroopers dragging people away in the night.

After Gulf War I America had a very strong negotiating stance. Other countries listened when America spoke.

They still listen, when a U.S. carrier battle group parks off your shore, you will listen. I must also assume that the world wasnt listening as it passed HOW MANY U.N. resolutions against Iraq as we pleaded for something stronger to happen?

This president has destroyed America's worldwide credibility, and is a traitor to the Unites States.

This one made me guffaw openly. Our loss of credibility doesnt seem to bother other nations when they accept our trade, commerce and charity. The hands are still out begging to America every time a disaster hits some craphole on the other side of the globe.

Bush is a traitor? A TRAITOR? Whewwwww, liberals crack me up when they get all frothy and crazy-eyed.

Nobody is "simply saying it". Clinton lied about sexual contacts, and he got impeached for it and removed from office in disgrace

What planet are you from, did you just land here or something? Clinton wasnt removed from office in disgrace, he was acquitted by the senate along party lines and he stayed in office. Thats why the name 'President Al Gore' doesnt ring a bell.

If youre going to screech, at least get your information right; getting the facts so patently wrong during your high-minded bloviating is making me believe you may be a lunatic.

Clinton was impeached for violating the law.... he lied under oath.. and there is plenty more his administration is guilty of they have yet to be held accountable for.

and let's not forget his incompetence and refusal to take bin laden when he had the (multiple) opportunities.

Matt (9/4/2006): "I am please to announce that Mark Noonan and I have signed with World Ahead Publishing to publish a book detailing corruption in today's Democratic Party."

That's an odd goal considering all the recent Republican ethics convictions. In response, I ask Matt to answer his own questions (2/9/2007): "Don't you want to rid your party of its corrupt elements? Wouldn't you rather hold yourself to a high standard rather than make excuses for it? Please, do explain."

Sadly, we all know the answers. No one thinks your book will be balanced. No one believes it will provide any solutions. We all know it'll be in the sale bin within a couple months. Buy your book to read your explanations? Why bother? We can see your explanations here everyday. They don't make sense.

Bacon - for a group that claims intellectual superiority to be so ignorant and hateful is as funny as it is frightening. It's like talking to colonel Klink. Condescending at the same time as ignorant and stupid.

http://www.triviatribute.com/sounds/wernerklemperer2.wav

Yah, its sad. But thats the liberal way: pounce on something before you know anything about it or else run screeching into the street only to find out you were oh so wrong.

Witness jonas declaring the CoC book invalid before its even hit the shelves, and of course, the new thread about the Feith paper.

Libs just cant help themselves; they are so used to putting their feet in their mouths that every morning they save a little time by eating their socks rather than wearing them.

Matt
You & I might agree to disagee but I sincerly wish you and Mark the best on your book.

I hope you sell millions and prosper beyond your wildest dreams.

This is what our America is all about.

-Joe

Bacon
I don't find CoC (not the ideal acronym, by the way) invalid so much as uninteresting. And I find it hilarious that two guys who advertise their prejudice (this site is named Blogs for Bush) complain that others are partisan.

Matt is equating lassitude for his book with apathy about corruption. That's not the case at all. But then, Matt has no interest in solving problems of corruption. His stated goal is to detail corruption in the Democratic party. If that's not partisan, what is?

I understand Matt's other goal is to try to generate controversy and publicity. But all he's getting are yawns.

If Matt and Mark's book sheds any light on the underlying mechanisms of corruption, I'm all for it. In that respect, the book doesn't have to be ideologically balanced, it just has to be accurate. You can pretty much count on some members of either party taking advantage of whatever mechanisms exist. So it doesn't much matter whether they shine a light on members of one party or another, just so long as they shine an accurate light -- particularly if they illuminate ways to eliminate corruption whereever it's found.