pageok
pageok
pageok
Politicizing the NEA:

I suppose this should not be a surprise. If the federal government funds art and other expressive endeavors, politicization is sure to follow.

UPDATE: More, including corrective actions being taken by the Administration, here.

yarrrr (mail):
Here is the name of the people on the NEA call... the washingtontimes is asking for help looking into them... there's like 70 of them...

One of them was an astroturfing PR firm that released a anti-Palin film during the election, pretended to never have never talked to Axelrod for 10 years, and then just happened to be on this call and be working for the government now...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198910.php
9.21.2009 9:27pm
Mac (mail):
I am getting a whole new appreciation of why there are laws on the books to prevent just this sort of intimidation.
9.21.2009 9:57pm
geokstr (mail):
It will be so much fun watching the usual suspects twist themselves into Mobius strip-like pretzels defending this NEA activity as something wholly innocent and totally ethical.
9.21.2009 10:36pm
The Drill SGT:
Isn't this sort of thing potentially a Hatch Act Issue?

Federal employees working for partisan purposes, soliciting assistance from Federal Grant recipients?
9.21.2009 10:52pm
Psalm91 (mail):
It certainly looks improper. But aren't you conservatives against investigations?
9.21.2009 11:06pm
Cornet of Horse:
Psalm91,

"But aren't you conservatives against investigations?"

If you're using superfluous second-person pronouns, you're probably a bigot...
9.21.2009 11:16pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
I can't say I'm too worked up about this. These people would be far leftists producing propaganda art for the Administration anyway even without explicit guidance. However it does appear there were intimations made by the NEA spokespersons despite the fact they knew the conversations they were having were dubious. That's the only thing that's possibly concerning to me here.
9.21.2009 11:33pm
geokstr (mail):

Politicizing the NEA:
I suppose this should not be a surprise. If the federal government funds art and other expressive endeavors, politicization is sure to follow.

Would NPR and PBS be considered "expressive endeavors"?
9.21.2009 11:35pm
The Drill SGT:
I hope no art loving progressive is shocked if there isn't a move to defund the NEA the next time the GOP controls at least one part of Congress.

as ye sow so shall ye reap...
9.21.2009 11:37pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
1. One is from MySpace.
2. Another is SeanBonner of such sites as la.metblogs.com; I'd guess that EV has met him.
3. Part of their work product has already been released. Good music at least.
9.21.2009 11:54pm
Borris (mail):
Some would argue that NOT producing art with the express purpose of advancing Obama's agenda would be racist.
9.22.2009 12:06am
Hamstonian:
I find this very depressing. Should I not expect a well oiled, suspicious, but well thought out plan to present this program that makes conservatives look like idiots. Is that too much to ask? You couldn't draw a better target on your own back. Just pathetic. Parts of this administration have no adult supervision.
9.22.2009 12:23am
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
I'm sorry, I seem to have linked the wrong video above. This is their work product.
9.22.2009 1:16am
geokstr (mail):

The Drill SGT:
I hope no art loving progressive is shocked if there isn't a move to defund the NEA the next time the GOP controls at least one part of Congress.

as ye sow so shall ye reap...

Geez, Sarge, you must be a yung'un. IIRC, there's been an attempt (or at least noises to that effect) by the GOP nearly every year since the Articles of Confederation to either reduce the budget of, or completely eliminate the NEA, just before their appropriation got increased.
9.22.2009 1:24am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
While this episode looks bad, in the long run I see it going about as far as the General Services Administration investigation into the same type of thing during the Bush admin. It's just too useful to the insiders for them to curb this sort of abuse.
9.22.2009 1:26am
DiversityHire (mail):
Would NPR and PBS be considered "expressive endeavors"?

Isn't NPR more of a soporific endeavor? Some sort of conspiracy to prove the efficacy of 5-mph bumpers?
9.22.2009 2:35am
~aardvark (mail):
It's really funny what some people get worked up about. Jon, you should really check all the facts before posting this nonsense.

For that matter, where were you and the rest of the Corner in 2001 when the NEA got 8 out of its top positions filled with National Association of Scholars members (the other two going to ACTA)? Or, for that matter, when a Department of Education employee told a group of "scholars" at the NAS national conference in 2001 that if they or their friends submit 25% of proposals, they'll get at least 60% of available grant funding--merit notwithstanding? Or when Lisa Keegan scammed the Dept of Ed to the tune of $3 million to build her DC condo through the Education Leaders Council--a sham organization that is not even mentioned in her Wiki bio!

This is nudge&wink stuff compared to the DOJ politicization under Bush. This phone conference was not organized by the NEA and not sponsored by the NEA. The presence of NEA employees there is troubling, but not illegal. It certainly does not rise to the level of Hatch Act proscriptions. This is desperation time for Breitbart--swatting at flies like ACORN and puffing up a minor ethically questionable involvement as "scandal".

"I've got a bunch of lovely coconuts..."
9.22.2009 6:46am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
And so now we know what tactic the usual suspects are going to use...

"Its not so bad, because... hey look! There's Bush!"

Well, its not like they had anything else to fall back on.
9.22.2009 7:16am
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
~aardvark --

My position then (and during the first Bush and Clinton Administrations) was the same as it is now: "If the federal government funds art and other expressive endeavors, politicization is sure to follow." This is why tax dollars should not fund this sort of thing.

As for what occurred in this case, NEA staff sent out invitations to the call from their government e-mails, and were not merely passive participants:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/08/aug-10th.jpg

JHA
9.22.2009 7:25am
David M. Nieporent (www):
For that matter, where were you and the rest of the Corner in 2001 when the NEA got 8 out of its top positions filled with National Association of Scholars members (the other two going to ACTA)?
Even if "Hey look! Bush!" were a valid response, I don't understand the relevance of this. What does that have to do with organizing arts grant recipients to support a political agenda?

Or, for that matter, when a Department of Education employee told a group of "scholars" at the NAS national conference in 2001 that if they or their friends submit 25% of proposals, they'll get at least 60% of available grant funding--merit notwithstanding?
I notice there's no sourcing for this claim.

Or when Lisa Keegan scammed the Dept of Ed to the tune of $3 million to build her DC condo through the Education Leaders Council--a sham organization that is not even mentioned in her Wiki bio!
Or this one, though I'll admit it's amusing that you think the lack of completeness of a Wikipedia entry for an obscure nobody is somehow sinister. (It is, by the way, discussed there, contrary to your claim.)
9.22.2009 7:53am
Joseph Slater (mail):
Or consider this opposing point of view.
9.22.2009 9:24am
Joseph Slater (mail):
Ryan Waxx:

Pointing out the obviously partisan hypocricy of some critics isn't a valid point?
9.22.2009 9:26am
RKV (mail):
Ben Shapiro over at Big Hollywood thinks the following statutes apply...

The Anti-Lobbying Act (19 U.S. Code §1913) provides:

“No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”

Further 31 U.S. Code §1352, bans use of

“funds appropriated by any Act [from being] expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action …”

Link

I'd appreciate a professional opinion from one of the members of the bar present (as opposed to those without benefit of an actual legal education) as to the state of the facts and the relevance of the statues Shapiro quotes. Is there a case to be made or is the whole NEA-Whitehouse coordination a smarmy legal non-issue? I mean this looks unethical on it's face to me, to have my taxes fund advocacy favoring policies I don't support, that much is clear. The $64 question is, is it illegal?
9.22.2009 9:36am
geokstr (mail):

~aardvark:
Jon, you should really check all the facts before posting this nonsense.

Aardvasrk, "you should really check all the facts before posting this nonsense".

"One of the first speakers on the call was Michael Skolnik, the "political director" for Def-Jam co-founder Russell Simmons. Skolnik made it quite clear that the artists were gathered together because of their support for Obama's agenda. Skolnik said that he had been "asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA" to "help bring together the independent artists community around the country." He told the callers that "the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call" included the effort "to support some of the president's initiatives" and “to push the president and push his administration."

The NEA, The White House, The Lies and The Cover-Up

So there was not just a presence of the NEA, they were behind the whole thing, much as you would like to imagine otherwise. As Larry Elder likes to say, facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to Superman.
9.22.2009 9:42am
geokstr (mail):

Joseph Slater:
Pointing out the obviously partisan hypocricy of some critics isn't a valid point?

Much as I tend to agree with you on rare occasions, this isn't one of them.

If something is wrong, isn't it like, well, wrong or something, no matter who the person commenting is or what else they might believe or even might have done?

I see that here a lot from both sides. If a "hypocrite" reports a crime, then the crime is no longer a crime? Especially since Obama won, the commenters on the left have gone to their chief defense of "so what, Bush did it too."

Believe it or not, a lot of us on the right were highly critical of Bush and his administration over a lot of major issues. I would have been just as incensed if Bush had tried to politicize the NEA (not that he could have gotten more than three artists together at one time to support him.)

The "arts" are supposed to be something different than political tools, aren't they? Beauty, and imagination, and all that stuff. This smacks way too much of 1984.
9.22.2009 9:59am
rick.felt:
Or when Lisa Keegan scammed the Dept of Ed to the tune of $3 million to build her DC condo through the Education Leaders Council--a sham organization that is not even mentioned in her Wiki bio!

This made me smile. Apparently the Right Wing Noise Machine (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) has managed to suppress embarrassing facts about a Republican from appearing on Wikipedia.
9.22.2009 10:13am
rick.felt:
For that matter, where were you and the rest of the Corner in 2001 when the NEA got 8 out of its top positions filled with National Association of Scholars members (the other two going to ACTA)?

I especially enjoy the "where were you?" formulation of a tu quoque charge. Where was I when this happened? I have no friggin' idea. It's possible that I was drunk. This is the first I've ever heard of it, and I suspect that this is the case for most other people here, too.
9.22.2009 10:23am
Steve:
My position then (and during the first Bush and Clinton Administrations) was the same as it is now: "If the federal government funds art and other expressive endeavors, politicization is sure to follow." This is why tax dollars should not fund this sort of thing.

While that's a principled position, it just happens to be the case that funding of "expressive endeavors" tends to be a Democratic project.

I assume you take the same position regarding government funding of faith-based organizations - a largely Republican initiative that tends to be perpetuated under Democratic administrations - but considering funding for faith-based organizations outstrips the NEA budget by a factor of more than 100 to 1, perhaps too much ink is being spilled on a single instance of politicization of the latter compared to the countless documented examples of politicization of the former.

If we can be real for a moment, the Republicans built an extremely effective political machine centered around getting control of the government purse and using it to distribute billions of dollars in funding to church groups, who would deliver Republican votes in exchange. Now that Democrats are in control, are we really supposed to believe that their incestuous relationship with Big Art is simply the flip side of the coin?
9.22.2009 11:25am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Pointing out the obviously partisan hypocricy of some critics isn't a valid point?
No. Also, not clear how any of the "Hey, look! Bush!" posts actually do demonstrate that. For instance, the "opposing point of view" you link to in your above post doesn't seem to be about government propaganda at all.
9.22.2009 11:49am
Joseph Slater (mail):
Much as I tend to agree with you on rare occasions, this isn't one of them.

I guess I'll have to settle for rare occasions, then!
9.22.2009 11:49am
David M. Nieporent (www):
I assume you take the same position regarding government funding of faith-based organizations - a largely Republican initiative that tends to be perpetuated under Democratic administrations - but considering funding for faith-based organizations outstrips the NEA budget by a factor of more than 100 to 1, perhaps too much ink is being spilled on a single instance of politicization of the latter compared to the countless documented examples of politicization of the former.
What same position? The faith-based thing was about allowing charitable organizations that happen to be sectarian to receive funds for their charitable efforts -- not about employing them to push the Bush administration's position on global warming.
9.22.2009 11:54am
Steve:
And that's how it worked out in practice, of course. I'm curious, though - why would government funding of expressive endeavors inevitably lead to politicization, but not so with respect to government funding of religious endeavors?
9.22.2009 11:57am
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
Steve, et al. --

The proper comparison to make is across programs, not funding recipients. If we add up all of the money that various "faith-based" groups have received, it is far more than the annual NEA budget (though not "100 to 1"), but this requires adding up funds given to various groups across a wide range of programs for various purposes. Whereas the NEA is explicitly charged with funding expressive activity, the various grant programs that have funded faith-based organizations are largely social welfare programs and the grants are largely for the administration and delivery of specific social welfare services.

That said, my view is that a) government funding of social services to help the needy is quite different than funding expressive activity; b) if the government is providing grants to outside groups for the provision of social services, then the government should neither discriminate for or against faith-based organizations; c) even when the government is engaged in funding of desirable programs, we should not be surprised if politicians seek to steer funding to groups that share their ideological or political agenda. That's the way the system works, and why government funding of many endeavors tends to be corrupting.

JHA
9.22.2009 12:00pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

If a "hypocrite" reports a crime, then the crime is no longer a crime?


No, the crime is still a crime. But the hypocrite is still a hypocrite, and hypocrites have no credibility.

a lot of us on the right were highly critical of Bush and his administration over a lot of major issues.


When Bush's "Office of Special Counsel … found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Alexis Doan violated the federal Hatch Act," what we heard from you, Adler, Nieporent and the rest of the VC crowd was the sound of crickets.

=======================
rick:

This is the first I've ever heard of it, and I suspect that this is the case for most other people here, too.


The Doan story was reported on the front page of WP, and lots of other places. Just never at VC, as far as I can tell. Why? IOKIYAR.
9.22.2009 12:38pm
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
JBG -

This is the first I heard of the Doan story, but I (and others on the VC) have been critical of Bush Administration politicization of various government agencies and functions.

More broadly, note that my post did not criticize the Obama Administration, but suggested that politicization is the inevitable consequence of funding certain sorts of endeavors. The problem is the underlying institutional arrangement, not whose political pals are in charge.

JHA
9.22.2009 1:03pm
ys:

The "arts" are supposed to be something different than political tools, aren't they? Beauty, and imagination, and all that stuff. This smacks way too much of 1984.

Wake up, Comrade Demichev, Socrealism is under threat!
9.22.2009 1:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
adler:

This is the first I heard of the Doan story


I find that surprising. The story was in the news repeatedly, for over a year. Here's one of the WP stories ("GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics") as it appeared on memeorandum.

I (and others on the VC) have been critical of Bush Administration politicization of various government agencies and functions.


Mostly what I recall are posts like this, where you acknowledge some politicization but mostly take the position that Bush's opponents were exaggerating the extent of the problem.
9.22.2009 1:41pm
Mac (mail):
I see that Doan is black. This is clearly a case of racism and misogyny on the part of the Democrats.
9.22.2009 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mac:

I see that Doan is black. This is clearly a case of racism and misogyny on the part of the Democrats.


I guess you must mean Democrats like Scott Bloch, who was appointed by Bush to run the DOJ Office of Special Counsel. Bloch investigated Doan and recommended "that the President take appropriate disciplinary action against [her] for [her] serious violation of the Hatch Act."

Except I have a feeling that Bloch is probably not a Democrat.

This is clearly a case of you not making much sense. But what else is new.
9.22.2009 3:41pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I find that surprising. The story was in the news repeatedly, for over a year. Here's one of the WP stories ("GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics") as it appeared on memeorandum.
In other words, the story was incredibly obscure, as that link shows.
9.22.2009 4:19pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
the story was incredibly obscure, as that link shows


How does that link show that the story was "incredibly obscure?" When a story makes it into the top 10 on memeorandum, with links under it from about 20 blogs, then by definition it's not "incredibly obscure."

And it was not one story. It was a series of events over the course of a year, generating multiple articles in multiple publications. When a story is covered in WP over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, then by definition it's not "incredibly obscure." Especially since that is not an exhaustive list, and there were at least three articles on A1.

And the story was obviously more important than the one phone call that Adler decided to write about. Which raises the question of why he knew about the latter and not the former. That's hard for me to understand, unless he always reads Drudge and never reads WP.

Welcome to the magical world of nieporent, where it's fair to describe a story as "incredibly obscure," even when it generates a WP editorial and at least a dozen news stories, including at least three on the front page.
9.22.2009 5:26pm
Mac (mail):

This is clearly a case of you not making much sense. But what else is new.



Ah, jukeboxgrad, this is also clearly a case of you not recognizing a joke. But what else is new?

I suppose you have not been following the entire "if you are against Obama health care, cap and trade, higher taxes, czars, whatever, just fill in the blank, you must be a racist"? Then there is Jimmy Carter stirring the pot and calling one and all who disagree with Obama a racist while referring to him as a "black boy". I don't expect any better from Carter, but the irony is not lost on all of us.
9.22.2009 7:47pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
this is also clearly a case of you not recognizing a joke


Your remark might have had some vague resemblance to a joke if the OSC investigation of Doan had been led by a Democrat. But it wasn't.

There's a difference between making a joke and being a joke.

I suppose you have not been following the entire "if you are against Obama health care, cap and trade, higher taxes, czars, whatever, just fill in the blank, you must be a racist"?


If you mean have I noticed that there are lots of people like you who are resorting to that pathetic straw-man argument, yes, I have.

while referring to him as a "black boy"


Carter used the word "boy" because he was describing Obama's boyhood. Duh. Someone else here tried to get away with that same crap last year. If you're going to post baloney, at least try to make it original.
9.22.2009 8:48pm
Mac (mail):
Anyone from the South should know better and if a Republican did that you would be the first one screaming.


If you mean have I noticed that there are lots of people like you who are resorting to that pathetic straw-man argument, yes, I have.


I have no idea what you are talking about.
9.22.2009 9:14pm
Mac (mail):

Carter used the word "boy" because he was describing Obama's boyhood. Duh. Someone else here tried to get away with that same crap last year. If you're going to post baloney, at least try to make it original.



Good Lord, JBG, you link to a post of your own? Now, that's really proof.
9.22.2009 9:29pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
if a Republican did that you would be the first one screaming


If a Republican did what? Refer to a black male child as a "boy?" Duh. That's what the word means: male child. There's nothing wrong with describing a black boy as a boy. The problem is describing a black man as a boy. That's what you implied Carter did. Trouble is, that's not what he did.

I have no idea what you are talking about.


That's because you're too foolish to realize that no one actually takes the position embodied in your statement ("if you are against Obama health care, cap and trade, higher taxes, czars, whatever, just fill in the blank, you must be a racist").

Good Lord, JBG, you link to a post of your own? Now, that's really proof.


It wouldn't be proof if it didn't contain a link to proof (i.e., a link to Carter's actual statement). But my post to which I linked does contain a link to Carter's actual statement. So it is indeed "really proof." Duh. Like a stopped clock, you managed to be inadvertently correct.

You didn't give us Carter's full statement, and you linked to nothing. I provided a link to my prior post, and in that prior post I provided Carter's full statement, along with a link to a proper source for that statement. Back here on Earth, that's what's known as "really proof."
9.22.2009 10:45pm
Mac (mail):
My goodness, jbg, you have gotten really testy. Lighten up. This too shall pass and you will have a Republican President to kick around, again.

Meanwhile, why are you so upset about Doan but the NEA deal is just fine?
9.22.2009 11:05pm
one of many:
Or when Lisa Keegan scammed the Dept of Ed to the tune of $3 million to build her DC condo through the Education Leaders Council--a sham organization that is not even mentioned in her Wiki bio!

This made me smile. Apparently the Right Wing Noise Machine (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) has managed to suppress embarrassing facts about a Republican from appearing on Wikipedia.

It's worse than that, just read the wiki bio, the VRC has managed to convert it to a complete reversal of the facts on Wikipedia. Curse that VRC.
9.22.2009 11:11pm
Psalm91 (mail):
One additional note. Since it appears that the recording was made by a person in California without disclosure of the recording and the consent of the participants, the act of recording was a crime under California law; a misdemeanor, I believe.
9.22.2009 11:17pm
Cornet of Horse:
Psalm91,

Keep shooting those messengers - I'm sure they'll go away any day now...
9.23.2009 12:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mac:

you have gotten really testy


What's your normal reaction to people who try to feed you crap? Then again, I suppose if you can't tell when crap is crap you eat crap happily and never get testy. Good for you.

why are you so upset about Doan but the NEA deal is just fine?


Hopefully you can point out where I said "the NEA deal is just fine." I didn't. It's wrong. But it's trivial compared with the Doan matter and lots of other similar matters. And as I explained, it's an issue of hypocrisy and credibility.

Along similar lines, Bruce Bartlett explained why the teabaggers have no credibility (link, scroll down to 'ecolawyer').

==================
cornet:

Keep shooting those messengers


Messengers who are ostensibly conveying a message regarding the importance of obeying the law tend to have more credibility when they find a way to convey their message without breaking the law. Which brings us back to that hypocrisy thing.
9.23.2009 1:33am
Mac (mail):
JBG,

Do you ever come out from under your total ideological mind set?

Just because you say something is "crap", your charming term to go with "teabagger" which says a lot about you and your arguments or lack thereof when you must resort to name calling, does not make it so. I don't know why it is worse. It seems cut from the same cloth, although I might think the NEA thing was worse since it seems to have been done at White House direction.

But, I am sure you don't agree. Don't you want to bring up Tom Delay? It seems it is at this point in a discussion, I frequently hear about him.

Tell me, as I am genuinely curious, is there a web site out there that continues to hyperventilate about Delay? His name comes up way too often. I am just curious.
9.23.2009 2:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mac:

Do you ever come out from under your total ideological mind set?


Do you even know what the word means? If you ever find out, feel free to explain which part of the meaning strikes you as pejorative. And aside from that, feel free to demonstrate what my 'ideology' consists of, other than an interest in separating truth from fiction.

Just because you say something is "crap"


One of several important differences between me and you is that I show proof for my claims. So feel free to demonstrate that I ever called something crap without showing proof (or without being willing and able to show proof) that the thing I called crap was actually crap.

your charming term to go with "teabagger" which says a lot about you


When the protesters themselves say they want to "tea bag the liberal Dems," and they want to "Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.," then there's no reason I shouldn't adopt the same terminology. If that terminology is good enough for Fox News, then it's good enough for me.

Aside from that, "this is also clearly a case of you not recognizing a joke … My goodness … You have gotten really testy. Lighten up. This too shall pass."

I don't know why it [Doan] is worse [than NEA].


If you don't understand why a top-level official being forced to resign because Bush's own Justice Department found that she repeatedly violated the Hatch Act is more important than one questionable phone call involving a couple of minor staffers, then there probably isn't much I can do to help you.

It seems cut from the same cloth


Naturally. And "lightning" and "lightning bug" both use the word "lightning," which means they must be exactly alike, because they are "cut from the same cloth." Also, Bernie Madoff and a petty thief both stole something, so they are "cut from the same cloth."

I might think the NEA thing was worse since it seems to have been done at White House direction.


You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Rove's office was intimately involved in Doan's Hatch Act violations (link, link, link). Here's an idea: do a little research before you shove your toes down your throat.

I am sure you don't agree


Which has something to do with the fact that I am paying attention to facts, rather than simply making shit up. Or blindly parroting ideas I picked up from other people who have made a career out of making shit up.

Don't you want to bring up Tom Delay?


There's no reason to focus too much on just him, since he's just one name on a very long list of GOP crooks.

And the point is not that GOP wrongdoing justifies Dem wrongdoing. It's that the people who winked at GOP wrongdoing have no credibility when they suddenly start whining now.

is there a web site out there that continues to hyperventilate about Delay? His name comes up way too often.


It's odd that you would complain about his name coming up "too often," since you're the one who brought up his name. But we already have lots of other indications that logic is not your thing.
9.23.2009 8:48am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.