Transcript.
Talking Points Live
Friday, April 22, 2005; 11:00 AM
|
So let's do this.
Terry
-------------------------------------------------------
"Members of Congress, who continue to run up record budget deficits with their big spending ways, wagged a finger this month in the collective face of the American consumer and said, "Learn to live within your means, or else."
Republican leaders finally pushed changes in bankruptcy law through the Senate after decades of trying. They -- and the 18 Democrats who joined them in supporting the bill -- sent a clear message that the explosion of credit card debt that led to more than 1.6 million bankruptcies last year was entirely the fault of consumers, this being the era of personal responsibility and all. The House is expected to pass the bill soon."
--------------------------
What really jumps out at me about this whole issue is that the credit card and banking industries have been pouring millions and millions into lobbying this issue for the past decade. They finally got enough Democrats signed on to pass it. Of course, no politician will admit that he/she voted a certain way for money, but I think it's instructive in this case that Congress has placed all of its efforts on the consumer, and done absolutely nothing to reign in the predatory lending practices of the credit card companies.
Could this be because there is no lobby for broke people in Washington?
A few points I'd make here: DeLay has now been cited five times by the Ethics Committee. That includes three admonishments, one rebuke and one warning, I believe. So there's a context and a history established that explains why these new charges are receiving so much attention. The Ethics Committee suggested in its admonishment of DeLay last year that his behavior seemed to have a pattern.
So I don't think you're going to see the same level of coverage given to ethics allegation, whether it be of Democrats, such as Pelosi, or other Republicans. With DeLay, there's a totality issue.
But look, there are other Republicans right now in the Congress who have ethical clouds over them, and you're not reading about them either. So does that prove that the media has a pro-conservative bias? No. It just means that they aren't being accused of new violations after already having been cited by the Ethics Committee five times.
The second point I would make is, leaders are always held to a higher standard than back-benchers, and their troubles always generate a higher level of coverage. I don't recall too many conservative feeling sorry for Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright 15 years ago when he was being tormented by Newt Gingrich and his acolytes. And I don't remember any conservatives suggesting that the media ought to be fair and cover the ethical scandals of Republicans to balance its all-out coverage of the Wright scandal.
Now having said all that...I think Post and the media in general should hold all politicians accountable. There should be and I'm sure there will be some level of coverage of the ethical allegations of other politicians--both Democrats and Republicans--in coming weeks and months.
Whatever the case, my guess, and it's just a guess, is that unless something much more damaging comes out, the White House will continue to stand by Bolton. It's not the president's style to back down on things like this.
His nomination does appear to be at least teetering because two Republicans--Sens. Chafee and Hagel--have said in recent days they're concerned about his nomination. Bolton can't get out of committee if they defect.
Let me ask this before I move on...How much have you read in the media about the pending ethics investigations of Republicans Bob Ney and Curt Weldon.
Not much...And for the same reason you haven't read much about Tubbs Jones...
There are 535 members of the House and Senate. Many, on both sides of the aisle, are under some sort of ethics cloud at one point or another. I don't think the national media pays any enough attention to any of them--on either side--unless it's a high-ranking leader, unless there is some sort of action by the Ethics Committee or a prosecutor or some sort of enforcement agency.
I suppose you're suggesting that because the Post has written a lot about DeLay, who is the second most powerful person in the House of Representatives, the national media has an obligation to devote an equal amount of news coverage to an ethics allegation against a back-bencher in the minority party who is known by no one outside of her congressional district.
Now keep in mind here, I'm only speaking for myself. It's not my job to speak for the Post. I don't know what the newspaper is planning in terms of future stories. And this is my perspective and my perspective only. You can disagree with me if you want, but that's where I stand.
But I don't think Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel have concerns about John Bolton because they're in colusion with the the evil baddies of the mainstream media.
And if you don't know what else Bolton is being accused of, you can read all about it in the paper. And if you don't believe what you read in the paper, you can go online and find transcripts of the Senate hearing and read about it in undiluted form.
I have been listening all around lately and I haven't heard anyone actually say anything legitimately positive about John Bolton since his nomination. I mean something other than "He would do a good job. He is qualified, etc." Those are not meaningful statements, they are just spin. Have you heard anything other than platitudes in his defense?
Now you may view those things as platitudes. And I'm neither endorsing nor disputing the positive things that have been said about Bolton. But to suggest that nothing positive has been said is not accurate, I don't believe.
So I guess at least that much.
But I'll stick with my argument...Cries of conspiracy are designed to do one thing: Deflect from your own problems and put your critics on the defensive. As I wrote in my column, this is common practice in Washington by both parties.
Jim Wright and his supporters tried the same thing, as did Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s.
Powell's insertion into this thing would naturally seem to make it more difficult for Bolton, because Powell is one of the very few people whose opinion is respected by many people on both sides of the aisle.
Sorry I'm leaving so many questions on the board, but duty calls.
Until next week, peace out.
Terry

