Josh Marshall: Some people got some 'splainin' to do.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

Naomi Seligman isn't happy with the House Democrats. And, I would say, with some reason.



You probably know that Seligman is Deputy Director and Communications Director for CREW (Citizens for Responsibility

and Ethics in Washington). And with a name like that, you can probably tell she and her colleagues have their work cut out for them.

In any case, a week ago CREW called on the House Ethics Committee to investigate the 'mystery' behind defense contractor Mitchell Wade's sweetheart purchase of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's home for upwards of a million dollars over market value and whether that had anything to do with Wade's company going from zero to sixty in about ten seconds in the Homeland Security and Defense contracting game.

(snip)

Seligman et al. are pissed at the Dems because under the House rules only another member of the House can file an ethics complaint with the House Ethics Committee. And despite their best efforts, the folks at Crew can't find a single Democratic member of the House who's willing to go out on a limb and fill out a form saying that they think the Ethics Committee maybe ought to take a look at Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Wade), his house sale, 'his' fancy yacht, and his general status as the best kept (at least as far as we know so far) man in Congress.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php#005865

[Lexingtonian]

1. I disagree with Josh on this one

The House Democrats' behavior forces the Ethics Committee to be purely defined by the DeLay problem.

If they sign onto this thing, it's open season on everything except that essential issue. Basically, Republicans will create a dust storm of allegations to bury that vital one.

If Seligman is smart, she turns to either Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders in the House or takes some other route.

[OzarkDem]

2. I agree w/ Josh

If Dems think by giving R's a pass on real ethics scandals in exchange for them not drumming up a bunch of phony charges about Dems, well, they're in for a surprise.

R's don't play fair, they'll make shit up to distract from their own scandals no matter what Dems do.

Then later, when someone tries to hold R's accountable, all they'll have to do is point to the lack of action by Dems when they had a chance to file a complaint.

Suck it up, Dems, and show some courage - do your job.

[Jacobin]

3. One tiny problem with that

If Dems think by giving R's a pass on real ethics scandals in exchange for them not drumming up a bunch of phony charges about Dems, well, they're in for a surprise.

IMHO, more than likely there is plenty of bribery going on with both sides of the aisle.

The money spent purchasing the bankruptcy reform act is over $85 million over 4 years.

When you live in a glass house.....it is disgusting, though

[Lexingtonian]

4. well, no

The stakes are not about convincing Democrats or Indies that Republicans are corrupt.

The stakes are about convincing Republicans that their own are corrupt.

For the time being the problem is that when Democrats and Republicans come up with equal-appearing charges against each other, Republicans refuse to accept the Democratic case and refuse to examine the Republican case for propriety.

So either Democrats have to resort to their own media efforts- ad campaigns- to explain their case to Republican voters, or they have to wait until Republican voters stop giving their own the uncritical goodwill they have so far.

I think the first is what Democrats are doing, necessarily, and in a year there may be enough deterioration of Republicans toward their own leaders that Democrats might stand a chance on the merits when matched up against the Noise Machine.