Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, not only didn’t support the creation of the new Office of Congressional Ethics but lobbied against its 229-182 passage Tuesday. “If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you’ll vote no,†Tiahrt urged his colleagues, warning that House members could end up bankrupted by the legal costs of defending themselves.
The new independent panel could investigate allegations against House members, refer findings to the House ethics committee, and issue a public report. Opponents of the new independent panel fear it will presume lawmakers to be guilty. But as two lawmakers have been indicted, two have gone to prison and others have been targeted by federal probes, the House hasn’t done a credible job policing itself on ethics matters.
Maybe time will bear out Tiahrt, but for now, it’s hard to see how an outside panel could do any worse.
65 Comments
Sounds like another tool to be used for partisan head-bashing. Just what we need.
Keep in mind lefties, the balance of power will shift again someday. Be careful what you wish for.
Heckler,
Yeah, God forbid we should ever return to the days of separation of powers, and accountability to one’s constituents rather than one’s corporate contributors. That would be awful, now wouldn’t it?
Tiahrt looks like a clown, sans makeup.
If they have done nothing wrong…then they have nothing to fear.
Tiahrt looks like a clown, sans makeup
he does have a purdy mouth. Ya think he can squeal like a pig?
CF
If you don’t get help at Charter please get help somewhere.
I’d point out that opposition to this measure was bipartisan, and it passed the House only after House leadership twisted the arms of their own members. They violated their own rules, in fact, to pass the measure. And democratic members in opposition made similar comments. So while Tiahrt may be singled out because he is the local representative, his comments are hardly out of line. A significant number of members, not surprisingly, thought setting up an independent and permanent star chamber was not such a good idea.
“If they have done nothing wrong…then they have nothing to fear.” Hmmmmm - where have we heard that before?
Heckler,
You sure are funny, quotin’ the teeveee and all. But that you needed to do so confirms that, once again, you have NO ANSWER. Kind of like, well, always.
GMC70,
Funny, isn’t it, to hear “if they haven’t done anything wrong, they won’t have anything to fear” now on the other ideological foot? It’s a bad argument regardless of who makes it. But given the hijacking of the Bush Justice Department in the service of political prosecutions, any pious concern for ideological purity in the House ought not to stop there.
CF
Can you EVER stick to the subject at hand? It’s pointless to try to even have a conversation with you. Go to the corner and talk to yourself. I’ve got better things to do.
Congrats, CF. You were the first to bring this up on the blog. I see the editors are following your lead.
And ounce of “self preservation”?
heh. Heheh. HEHEHEHEH. HEEE HEEHE EHEHEHEHEHHEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I do kinda see his point, KFG, about the cost of defending themselves. No sense a politian being held accountable for their actions, right? I’m sure Econ will sell them legal insurance at a modest rate, at least for the Reps.
Tankerless Todd was FOR ethics before he was AGAINST ethics.
CF -
“Other ideological foot?” To whom do you refer? Seem to me the left is primarily the pick and choose what we like constitution side; you’ll never hear that phrase come from me to defend an otherwise illegal search or seizure. I deal with the 4th amendment and its related concepts daily, and it’s alive and well - as it should be.
So put your self-rightous bluster where the sun don’t shine.
78 ethical charges against Newt. All politically motivated.
The dems have nothing to bring to the debate so merely file ethics complaints. . .
Ethics?
Republicans don’t need no stinking ethics!
Why do we allow them to write their own ethics rules?
Ken, see Article I, section 5, Constitution of the United States for what I suggest is the answer to your query.
and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members
Ya mean they can be fined for non-attendance just like the good ole days of the House of Burgesses?
Fish, they may; it is, of course, up to the House itself to implement this.
I think it should be enforced by 1.5 percentage of time missed. And nothing left undone at end of session. Anything taking over the session time and members be docked 2 days for every day over.
NM, they’ll just vote themselves even MORE of a pay increase to offset.
This blog is becoming filled with Leftist Liberal trash - not even worth coming to anymore. The Editors with their attack “anything conservative” have the lion’s share of the blame.
The Cons are quaking in their boots again, what with the threat of justice on their heels.
From urbandictionary.com —
persecution complex
One of the top fifteen factors that can transform a reasonable, amiable, friendly person with reasonable, friendly beliefs and ideas into a ranting, screaming, judgemental zealot with poisonous, nauseating, self-righteous dreck for beliefs.
Persecution complex can strike anyone, regardless of belief, creed or religion, or whether they disagree with you or not. Once you start believing that the whole world is against you, you begin to justify your abominable actions by the presumed hostility of the world. Mind you, it’s a great way to not only make enemies, but also an excellent way of making people reject your beliefs and idealogy.
Could someone explain to me how an independent ethics panel is somehow a political tool or the Dems, or the “left”? Did I miss something? Or is this an implicit admission that some people don’t care much for independent oversight?
“This blog is becoming filled with Leftist Liberal trash - not even worth coming to anymore.”
I think Reg must be channeling the ghost of Joe Williams - “leftist liberal trash” is the give-away there.
Chimpanzee High Acting Perversion (C.H.A.P) -
One of the single factors that that transform an already unreasonable person with hostile beliefs into a full fledged vomit spewing demon actually believing they can psycho-analyze a person or groups of people without proper licensing or training.
C.H.A.P. complex only strikes Liberals, who have no beliefs other than Jerry Garcia is still alive, toking his way to fame and fortune and generally genuflecting their tiny appendages in sterile LSD environments. Once you get into that everyone is persecuting, accusing and victimizing you, the rest is easy and the ACLU will send you a certified “mouth-breather’ card in the mail.
Good point Rage. A little close to “if they’ve done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear” for some folks, but good point that suddenly ethics rules are seen as tools of the left.
Rage
“independent oversight”
How you going to accomplish this Rage? How do you eliminate politics from oversight of politicians?
i.e.- What the hell was Jamie Georlich doing on the 9-11 commission?
Remember, it could swing either way.
Hehehehehehe. Persecution complex just about describes values boy these days. I think Persecution Complex with Excessive Whining might be the complete description.
not even worth coming to anymore.
If ya move real fast the door won’t smack your keester
Lots of Wingnut snivelling ’round these parts this morning. Fine by me.
Heckler,
Get over yourself, throwing brickbats at me and then trying to pretend you didn’t. I substantively defended the need for House oversight, and all you could think to do was throw poopie, and then to whine when I threw it BACK at you.
If that’s how you want to play, fine by me: I can beat you on the merits, or I can out-scorch the earth.
GMC70,
The “other ideological foot” refers, as you suggest, PRECISELY to the Wingnut defenders of illegal warrantless wiretapping, who say (and I quote) that “those who haven’t done anything wrong have nothing to fear.”
Given the Administration’s efforts to secure retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecoms, GMC70, it’s pretty clear that laws have been broken, a fact that matters not at all to you, apparently.
If you’re the one who’s dealing “daily” with Fourth Amendment issues and their defense, let’s just say I’m glad I live in a neighboring county.
And if you want to escalate this conflict into namecalling, GMC70, go right ahead. Putz.
Regular
Posted March 14, 2008 at 9:40 am | Permalink
“Once you get into that everyone is persecuting, accusing and victimizing you, the rest is easy and the ACLU will send you a certified “mouth-breather’ card in the mail.”
Hmmmm…sounds just like you Regular!
I didn’t take the time to ready each post and skimmed over others but it seems maybe the liberals and evil democrats who post here need another lesson in IOKIYAR. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.
Anything and everything is wrong if done by the evil democrats and right if done by the upstanding, above-reproach, god-fearing republicans.
Obviously even some of those evil democrats in Congress forgot the lesson.
didn’t take the time to READ and obviously not the time to proof… but then I am one of those evil democrats and it’s expected that what I do is wrong.
obviously not the time to proof
if it ain’t 151 proof or better, no sense to even bother.
Actually read your original post the way it was supposed to be read. Your pointing out the typo brought my attention to it.
How you going to accomplish this Rage? How do you eliminate politics from oversight of politicians?
Civil service, including whistleblower protections. But I still haven’t heard what’s wrong with this bill.
Too much power, possible persecution? Okay. Let’s say that’s the issue. How about, then, we agree to eliminate indefensible abuses of power, in general? We can start with things like, says, warrantless spying on Americans.
Deal?
Hehehe, touche, CF.
Not only that, but don’t forget the classic “how have YOU been personally harmed when super-secret Big Government illegal spies on you and you don’t even know it?”
So tell us, GMC, Heckler, et al.
How does this ethics bill personaly harm YOU?
Dear cons.
We are sorry you are disappointed in your blogging experience. We understand you have choices in blogging and hope you will consider the WEblog in future.
Garsh, the pantywaisted Republicans have gone away for a while. Guess the thought of real oversight scares the shit out of ‘em.
“If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you’ll vote no [on the ethics bill].”
Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit!
I thought the democratic challenger could find nothing better to hang Teeheartless with than his utterly shameful “Lobbyists are welcome in my office anytime.”
Tiahrt should shut up while he’s behind . . . He’s going to be admitting to using tax-payer funds to buy hookers and heroin at this rate.
I was just beginning to believe Clinton’s knobber WAS the cause of all the evil in the world
J R
ROLF!!!
Ding ding ding ding!
We have a winner, folks.
oops I meant ROFL . . . but ROLF is good too.
It means I was laughing so hard I almost up-chucked.
Heh
And with a loud Harumph! the right detonates into a cloud of unpleasant odor.
If Rep. Tiahrt is correct about the legal costs of defending a House member being what bankrupts such member, then perhaps another revision in the Bankruptcy Code will be forthcoming. Just a thought.
Is this the same Tiahrt who said Tom Delay was innocent? Or is this the same Tiahrt who attended fundraisers help by Jack Abramoff? Or is this the same Tiahrt who rewarded Blackwater mercenary company owner Erik Prince with no-bid contracts to drop chemical weapons on Americans and sell weapons to Iraqi insurgents because Prince gave Tiahrt some campaign donations? Or is this the same Tiahrt who voted against increasing the minimum wage but voted himself a $4,000 pay raise? Or is this the same Tiahrt who send his aide Matt Schlapp to disrupt the Florida recount in 2000?
I couldn’t possibly imagine that Tiahrt would have any concerns about ethics problems. He did, after all, vote to weaken ethics standards in the past.
Does this criticism by Rhonda mean Tiahrt might not get the Eagle’s endorsement this year?
IMHO, this is a much better criticism of the bill then what Tiahrt says (or what I’ve seen here). From the article:
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who fought for tougher ethics rules when Republicans controlled Congress, said the new panel may actually weaken ethics enforcement, if the ethics committee cedes its investigative duties to a body without subpoena powers. Even Capuano said the panel could be as susceptible to gridlock as the ethics committee has been, if appointees fall prey to partisanship and refuse to investigate lawmakers from their party.
P.S. Tiahrt is still showing what a jackass he is. :)
Rage, I agree that which you posted is a much stronger and better criticism of the bill than what Rep. Tiahrt said. Why not give the panel subpoena powers, if the House is serious?
In reading the initial post by Rhonda, it struck me that the panel had little power as such. It is to refer cases to the Ethics Committee, and publish a report after investigation. The ability to investigate, without subpoena power, is greatly hindered, IMHO.
The first time I was made aware of Mr. Tiahrt, I was perusing a very, very funny website in which the webmaster(s) dressed Mr. Tiahrt as a Nazi.
Now, that was very funny indeed - as was the accompanying verbiage.
It’s a fact of life that all things must come to an end, even things like my youth and the ability to walk five miles in 60 minutes while singin’ the entire “Chicago” soundtrack at the same time.
Oh well, since Mr. Tiahrt gave himself a rather substantial raise, perhaps he can make a donation and keep this website alive.
There’s gotta be other people like me out there - people who need a wonderful laugh to soothe their savaged soul(s). I mean, there’s only so many times I can watch “Borat” with minimal irony……….
Let’s see here. The Democratic leadersship brokeit’s own rules to get an ethics bill passed. And Tiaharts opposition is the only story? Nice.
Actually, I think that Vaughn has a point about setting up a body without subpoena power, greatly diminishes the ability to investigate. I also think that both parties will use it in political ways.
However, it is at least a step in the right direction. THe SOBS of both parties need to be held accountable.
Want a laugh, Songbird? True story.
I met Todd Tiahrt in 1994, during his first run for Congress. He had just given an incredibly vague speech, full of symbolism and code words but no substance. He derided the Democrats’ “cream puff” crime bill but, again, no details.
I talked with him aftwards.
I asked him about what he would do about crime. He responded with rhetoric. I cut to the chase:
“More prisons and more jails?”
“Yes, basically.”
“But America already imprisons more people per capita than any industrialized nation on Earth.”
“Yes, but 7 percent of the criminals commit 80 percent of the crimes.”
“What about the other 93 percent?”
For about 5 seconds, plastic smile and the glassy-eyed look of a dead animal. I grinned back.
“Don’t you think that OJ is guilty?” Huh? For some reason, I let him get away with that. Bigger grin on my part, though–I was highly amused!
“That’s for the jury to decide.”
“But he’s guilty–right?”
At this point, I excused myself, and left.
This, 4th District, is the man you’ve sent to Washington for 13 years, to represent you.
I hope you’re proud. ;)
Hey, are you related to the dudes in Rage Against the Machine? They were one of my favorite bands (since disbanded, though).
OK - just kidding.
That’s quite a story. And we Dems are supposed to be “cream-puffs?” This from a man who allows himself to be photographed in Hitler’s garb?
Why, if the man had any huevos at all, he’d have put those young upstarts (the webmasters) in their cribs and silenced ‘em BEFORE they kept me awake all night back in August 2004.
And I can’t EVER get that beauty sleep back! The temerity of ‘em!
“ranting, screaming, judgemental zealot with poisonous, nauseating, self-righteous dreck”
You understand, MH, this describes you to a “T.”
And CF, if you can find any “namecalling” in my last post to you, I’ll eat my hat. Numbnuts.
How’s that?
And, CF, you’re not the only one happy you live elsewhere.
GMC70 RE:”Numbnuts.”
Maybe you need larger underwear to alleviate this condition. Just a suggestion.
Rage, good story. It’s no wonder Tiahrt avoids political debates. When I wrote to him about his opposition to the SCHIP bill he ranted on about how illegal immigrants would get health care. They didn’t receive benefits under the current plan and won’t under the new plan but that would detract from the prepared talking points that Tiahrt is given.
Tiahrt is stupid, I’ll grant you that, but he is simply representing the people who voted for him.
GMC70,
Technically, you’re correct: telling me to shove something up my ass, as you did above, isn’t “namecalling.” But considering that you DID tell me “put my self-righteous bluster where the sun doesn’t shine” (your words), you aren’t really in much of a position to act all hurt and unctuous.
So leave off with the sanctimony, GMC70. You’re words shows that you’re just as juvenile, and just as capable of being just as big an asshole, as the rest of us.
DOH! Did I REALLY use “you’re” for “your” in the second paragraph? ACK.
“This blog is becoming filled with Leftist Liberal trash - not even worth coming to anymore.”
Well then don’t - just don’t come back under a brand new nic - it makes you look like an idiot.
Whoops! You do that already.
(chortles)
“House members could end up bankrupted by the legal costs of defending themselves.”
But it’s OK for a bunch of zealots to convene Grand Jury after Grand Jury to harass businesses into bankruptcy.
“I’ll eat my hat. Numbnuts.”
I bet he can’t finish it!
If some politicians could look at the morons using their power to fatten their own pocketbooks illegally, not as belonging to any party, but as common crooks, ethics might have a chance at a comeback. But being as it is politics, no chance at that. Not quite what our founding fathers hoped for, what?
I think outside ethics committee was the only possible solution after we witnessed all of the abuses during Republican domination of congress. When the ethic would hurt delay, then their logical conclusion was to attempt to change said rules.
If he thinks the ethics panel, without subpoena powers is a recipe for bankruptcy; what then he must have thought about spending 70 mil. to try and get to Bill?
Of course he doen’t want an ethics committee. He’s among the most corrupted politicians in office.
Tiahrt is the new Glickman.
Vote Tiahrt out in 2008!!!
I’m not sure if we’re allowed to post URLs here - but if anyone wants a laugh on this rainy, ugly morning - get a load of this:
http://www.maggotpunks.com/mp.html
Oh, The Joy(s) of Youth……and Photoshop…….