In last night’s debate Sharron Angle “mopped the floor” with Harry Reid, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.
If you didn’t get a chance to see the debate, the Senate Majority Leader looked as effete as ever. Adding his signature charming touch, Reid looked as though it was beneath him to have to actually debate a challenger.
Meanwhile, Sharron Angle challenged Reid on his ultra-liberal voting record. Reid is another ‘Blue Dog’ who is elected from Red/Purple state, but represents San Francisco. In reality, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
Despite the economic collapse that Reid and his ilk have orchestrated, Senator Reid has grown immensely wealthy while in the Senate. Starting from humble beginnings in Searchlight, Nevada, entirely on the salary of a public servant Reid has become one of the richest members of the United States Senate. Where did all that money come from? In the video below, Sharron Angle nails Reid on that specific issue:
On this Strictly Right Ari and Andrew have too many It Must Be A Liberals to chose from, they examine liberal group politics, an embarrassing session of Canadian Parliament, and of course, how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the country this week.
On this Strictly Right: a celebration of Christine O’Donnell’s victory, an analysis of the citizen legislators heading to DC in 2010, why I’m thinking of picking up smoking, Democrat hypocrisy and much more.
Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government broke this bombshell today:
A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn’t available, so Holmes Norton left a voicemail. CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO
To summarize, in the message Democrat Eleanore Holmes Norton repeatedly described herself as a senior official in her party to a lobbyist who she was soliciting campaign donations from. First and foremost, it is a crime to solicit funds from federal property. If these calls were made from Rep. Norton’s Congressional office she is guilty. In addition, Norton repeatedly touts her seniority on committees that are important in this lobbyist’s “sector.” It is painfully clear that Norton was soliciting a quid pro quo. Norton needed the donation to match what Speaker Pelosi required of her, so Norton offered to sell her vote and influence, obviously also a crime.
Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamps” of corruption. She told the country that the Democrats would offer the “most honest and ethical” Congress in history. In reality, the Democrats have been the most secretive and most corrupt Congress in memory. Kickbacks through earmarks to favored groups have been standard operating procedure. Support the Democrats and you’ll get preferential treatment in housing, caring for the salt marsh harvest mouse or your major media conglomerate. It is time to drain the swamps in DC of the obscene corruption of the party of Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and Eleanore Holmes Norotn.
Here is a detailed look at exactly what Rep. Norton said:
Her message raises many concerns.
1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:
ha[s] given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information? Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use that information to solicit campaign donations.
2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a subcommittee highly relevant to his “sector”.
3. Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic development project in the District, funded by “stimulus” funds. It would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project, or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is “frankly surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes, because of her
long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector
“In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:
She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).
She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 601).
Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):
p. 147: “[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member … in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the Member’s official capacity.”
p. 150: “[A] Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.”
4. We don’t know from where she made this call, but it is a relevant inquiry. It is, after all, illegal to solicit campaign funds on federal property.
As Holmes Norton repeatedly notes on the call, she is a senior member of Congress. She knows or should know all of this. First elected to Congress in 1990, she took her law degree from Yale University and clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Leon Higginbotham before working as an assistant legal director at the ACLU, law professor at NYU, Chairman of the NYC Human Rights Commission, and Chairman of the EEOC. She is a tenured law professor at Georgetown University and serves on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies.
That a Member like Holmes Norton would leave the foregoing voicemail message must be a testament to the kind of pressure Speaker Pelosi has put on her members. Indeed, she acknowledges this in the call:
As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.
Well, the Democrats tried the whole “honest” thing and found out that they didn’t really like it. While it is laughable that the party of: William ‘cold cash‘ Jefferson, Christopher ‘friends of Angelo‘ Dodd, Harry ‘land scam‘ Reid, Eric Massa (I figure Mr. ‘tickle fights’ doesn’t need an explanation), Nancy Pelosi and so forth was ever considered the party of ethics and integrity, the latest move by Pelosi’s team is illuminating, to say the least.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is sending private signals that she is willing to support watering down the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the panel she and fellow Democrats created last year to serve as a new watchdog on congressional misconduct.
Susan Crabtree of The Hill newspaper reports on a meeting late in May between members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Speaker Pelosi. The Speaker heard a litany of complaints about the OCE’s aggressiveness and its public release of documents that reflected badly on the reputations of members.
So, to clarify, the House is going to neuter the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) because…. it’s too effective? Isn’t the OCE’s stated purpose to find documents and information that reflect poorly on members of Congress? If the OCE isn’t supposed to find and reveal damning information, what is it supposed to do? Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats ran against the Republican ‘culture of corruption.’ The 2006 election was purportedly about honesty and integrity. Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley were the Democrats keystones. Pelosi promised to lead the “most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” After 4 years of lies, deceptions, backroom deals, and mass corruption, it is only fitting that the Democrats are poised to officially renounce anti-corruption measures and publicly embrace the the culture of corruption.
Have you noticed how well Obama’s stimulus package has worked? People are working again, the economy is booming and the near meltdown of 2008 is all in the past. At least that’s what President Obama would have you believe. In fact, Obama’s position is that the stimulus was so effective, it’s time to spend even more money the country doesn’t have on a new and improved stimulus bill for 2010. The Washington Postreports “President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments.”
Remember all those crazy Republican governors that tried to turn down stimulus money in 2009, saying that the money would artificially inflate their state’s revenue, and create an unsustainable single year increase in spending? Funny thing – they were right. States cannot depend on the federal government to fill their budget shortfalls. The bottom line is there is no money – spendthrift states have to cut back (although, not having any money doesn’t seem to stop the federal government).
Since it is a well known fact that Democrats do not let economic realities get in the way of their agenda, it should be apparent that there is a more insidious plan at play here. The Democrats want to use tax dollars to keep local bureaucrats employed. While Obama may say he is concerned about “police and firefighters,” he is really concerned about teachers and unionized workers. Bailing out the states would ensure that unionized government workers would not lose their jobs, and still be able to pay their union dues. Their dues to unions like the NEA and the purple-shirt mafia known as the SEIU. Care to guess which political party reaps the benefits of politically active and financially sound unions? In a 2006 article entitled “Teachers’ Pets,” the Wall Street Journal reported that the NEA, the largest teacher’s union in the United States, gave away $65 million in political contributions to liberal causes. Included among the recipients of NEA donations were: “Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups.” While any person, or organization, should be free to chose where they spend THEIR money, it is an entirely different issue when an organization receives government – taxpayer – dollars. The Democrats are bailing out their constituencies leading up to an election. Moreover, and here is the greatest sin in the entire scheme, the Democrats are funding organizations, with taxpayer dollars, that will surely contribute to Democratic Party efforts in 2010 and 2012. Essentially, through circular financial dealings, the Democrats are funneling tax dollars into their reelection campaigns. This from the “most ethical congress ever.” You could knock me over with a feather.
By “he” I’m, of course, referring to America’s favorite Jerry Springer star that never was baby-daddy/trial lawyer, John Edwards!
Yesterday when interviewing Ann Coulter on Strictly Right Radio, Ann mentioned her friend Lisa DePaulo’s interview with Rielle Hunter, the mother of the baby of America’s moral conscience, Edwards. Delving further into the story, however, we see that Hunter wasn’t the only woman.
“A lot of women, [...] There were several women that he told me about. It’s something looking back that I should have been suspicious of and like when were staying in hotels together he would go out for a ‘jog’ at two o’clock in the morning, and I would run into that more and more.
“I’d go to knock on his door in the morning, there’d be towels stuffed underneath the door and I would hear muffled voices, or he would use my cell phone and the callback number would be some woman that I’d never heard of before.”
I remember back in the good ole’ days, Democrats just tried to screw as many people as possible through legislation, not through the actual act of schlupping. The silver lining? We’re done listening to pseudo-campaign speeches from Edwards I imagine. Though I imagine we’ll likely be seeing too much of Elizabeth Edwards now…
