Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Why does Pelosi want rules she already violates?

by Soren Dayton | July 11, 2008 at 9:27 AM
in

In the somewhat bizarre ongoing fight over House Franking Commission rules, Nancy Pelosi has made it even worse. Yesterday, on her Speaker's Office blog, she published a letter that she sent to House Republican Leader John Boehner:

Thank you for your letter on the recommendations by Franking Chair Capuano to the Committee on House Administration regarding posting web video external to the House.gov domain. We share the goal of modernizing the antiquated franking regulations to address the rapidly changing realities of communications in the internet age. Like many other Members, I have a blog, use YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Digg, and other new media to communicate with constituents, and I believe they are vital tools toward increasing transparency and accountability.

I am glad that the speaker uses technology like any normal online activist. But I wonder why she is using technology that violates the rules that Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) is proposing. Furthermore, she and other House Democrats have pointed out that these uses are currently in violation of House rules.

Click-through to any of the videos and you will see "political content". Click through to the Facebook site, and you will find advertisements, clear "commercialization".

Do these people understand that they are currently in violation of House rules and are proposing new rules that they are also in violation of? And if they don't think that there is any problem with their current usage -- and their isn't -- why don't they want to write rules that are in accordance with current practice?

Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

You bring up a good point ...

Submitted by Blue Collar Muse on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 11:00.

It is quite likely they actually don't have any idea.

They would likely explain away the commercialization as being something not under their control - those are FaceBook's ads - but insist that they must be able to use FaceBook. The idea a particular medium or outlet, by nature, precludes their involvement would not occur to them.

The biggest problem would seem to be that we have somehow managed to codify non-prosecution for politicians into the process. If a pol can be shown to have been acting in accordance with his duties, he evidently can do pretty much anything short of felony murder.  I wish I had my own personal Speech and Debate Clause.

They can kite checks, Barney Frank can enable a prostitution ring from his home, Cynthia Mcinney can assault security screeners, Jim Cooper can confess to crimes from his seat on Committee and on and on and on. These people are never prosecuted.

Unless and until we move to hold Congress to at least the same standards of behavior the rest of us must abide by, they will continue to treat us like the rubes and boobs we behave like.  Yet another reason for principle based voting ...

I think that you miss the point

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 11:21.

The rules would prevent them from using sites that allow "commercialization" of their content.

They would be creating, a mandate that private companies provide a subsidy to the Congress to allow them to post content.

yes

Submitted by Matt Stoller on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:51.

Those rules don't apply to the Speaker's office.

Wait. What?

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:04.

The rules do not apply to the Speaker's Office? Or the whip or the other political offices?

And is your argument really that the Speaker shoudl be able to do it, but other members shouldn't be able to?

all

Submitted by Matt Stoller on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:12.

The rules do not apply to leadership offices. 

And no, my position is that this is ridiculously irritating work from Democrats like Capuano, which I will post shortly.

Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

Submitted by Charlie In Colorado on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:45.

No.

OMG

Submitted by texicali on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 02:16.

more do as I say not as I do from the Dems..........it just never stops.....it's totally insane for any kind of "subsidy" be paid to use what's out there at no cost....yes I realize and understand we're talking about Congress who loves subsidies as much as they love taxes....they live by OPM....don't they have better things to do than write a law they don't need and won't apply to them anyway?  How stupid do they think the voting public is?  With their approval ratings LOWER than the President's they are just totally out of touch with the people and reality but that's nothing new for them....so what happens to those who do this now if it applies to them?  what will happen if they write this new law and people don't abide by it either?  Is this just more cheap political points for them to bloviate over?  They need to be voted out of office

How stupid do they think the voting public is?

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 16:28.

In the Spring I received weepy IM after IM from conservative colleagues asking me "when is the bleeding going to stop in the GOP districts??" after the voting public turned out to be stupid (maybe a more appropriate word is ignorant) enough to continue electing Democrat after Democrat even though they've now sunk to a 9% approval rating, which is 21 points lower than Bushitler and Darth Cheney?  Hmmm...I remember about a year ago when Einstein Harry Reid was written of thusly in the New York Times:

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Right.  Well I guess he won't be talking to himself much any more.  If I were a Democrat, I'd be absolutely kvelling at how successfully the voting public has been completely dumbed down through liberal media, academia, and an impressively successful Bush is the World's Leading Terrorist propaganda campaign. 

My hat's off to the Dems, they are truly potential Masters of the Universe. I don't know if the damage can ever be repaired to the integrity of journalism and mass communication, much less the education system.  But if Democrats are successful at maintaining affirmative action educators through the all-powerful NEA instead of providing a real education to public school students by rewarding good educators in a competitive and merit-based system, I can see an even dumber set of voters coming soon to a precinct near you. How the Democratic party base can refer to themselves as Progressive is truly beyond my [sic] comprension. 

Of course there is a bright side to all this.  If the Democrats are too smart by half and position themselves as the majority power in government who will be perceived as fully responsible for any and all future failures for several decades to come, well...even people whose formal education has been stolen from them might still possess some of that good old American common sense. 

(S)he who has the power...

Submitted by steveegg on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 12:44.

Do remember who enforces the rules; the party in power.