Mollohan Cocktail
There's been some troubling discussion lately (starting, I think, with Saturday's front-page NYT article) about Rep. Alan Mollohan's finances. Mollohan is the ranking Democrat on the "Ethics" "Committee" (quotes for "Ethics" thanks to both Mollohan's apparent transgressions and to the GOP's inclusion of members on the "Committee" who gave money to Tom DeLay's legal defense fund; quotes for "Committee" because it doesn't bother meeting and appears totally dysfunctional).
I'm pressed for time and so can't write much. But I will say this:
I'm pressed for time and so can't write much. But I will say this:
- The facts look bad. From what I've heard and read, they involve earmarks that went to nonprofits whose execs donated heavily to Mollohan's campaign and some of whom are in business with Mollohan and his wife
- Mollohan should step down from the "Committee" at least temporarily (and probably permanently). It's absurd that he's the Dems' leading man on the "Ethics" "Committee". Failing to take a strong stand on this issue---as Pelosi has indeed failed to do---makes the Dems look every bit as hypocrital as the GOP (see Delay, Ney, Cunningham, Doolittle, etc) on this one case. If the Dems mean anything by their quite appropriate criticisms of the GOP's culture of corruption, then they'd better put their Mollohan where their mouths are. Moreover, taking a strong stand here would be good politics: Pelosi et al could say, "Hey, we don't take this garbage from our members---why should the American people take it from the GOP?" Mollohan is one guy. Cut him loose for the moment, and for the duration if the US Attorney's investigation turns up solid evidence of wrongdoing.
- I was quite proud to hear both Al Franken and Melanie Sloan of CREW make all of these points on the Al Franken Show today (see CREW's statement on the matter for more; as a comparison, I wonder how many GOP pundits and GOP-aligned groups like CREW have pushed for Bob Ney to resign?)
posted by Jonah B. Gelbach at 3:28 PM
6 Comments:
I challenge anyone to name a politician with ethics.
peter
thanks for the kudos. randomly, i happened to still have the NYT from that day. your suspicion turns out not to be confirmed: the mention of Mollohan's party affiliation occurs (in the next-to-last graf) before the jump. so you owe me yet another $10 (gotta make up for that credit-card roulette loss the other night!).
incidentally, you might want to do a little research on the various abramoff stories out there. a couple wks back there was quite a lot of noise on the liberal side of the 'sphere about how newspapers (i think, specifically, the nyt and the WP, tho i could be leaving out the AP or wrongly indicting one of the other 2) were not mentioning abramoff's penchant for GOP love until late in the articles, or even not at all.
so you are not alone in your feelings of persecution.
as for you, mrs. w, i give you paul wellstone. who, unfortunately, is no longer with us. i'll have to think about some others.
and surely, peter, you will be interested to read about media treatment of Gov. George Ryan (Who knows? We Won't Tell You - IL).
you do seem to have highlighted a potentially important imbalance in journalistic coverage of scandals.....
bamby
i figured the press would ultimately do its job on this one....and that you would take the time to prove it to me!
as for abramoff, i think we both have better things to do than look into that issue. was just making the point that people on both sides probably have some legit gripes to lodge on this issue....which may (or may not) mean that on this sort of thing, the media screw up in both directions in a roughly unbiased way.
meanwhile, think about the name of the bar where you want to spend that $10 bucks buying me drink(s).
j
peter
a propos of your concerns regarding nyt pre-jump bias, a friend in the journalism business points out the following:
1. Today'd A1 NYT article about Mary Mccarthy discusses her $2k donation to Kerry in 2004 before the jump.
2. It buries this graf at the very end:
But some former C.I.A. employees who know Ms. McCarthy remain unconvinced, arguing that the pressure from Mr. Goss and others in the Bush administration to plug leaks may have led the agency to focus on an employee on the verge of retirement, whose work at the White House during the Clinton administration had long raised suspicions within the current administration.
3. Meanwhile, the WaPo offers in the next-to-last graf of a long A1 article that
The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
Whatever you think of Mary Mccarthy and what she appears to have done, I'm sure you will be quite upset to hear of such unbalanced journalistic conduct.
Perhaps you should write another letter to the WaPo?
:-)
j
peter
You can't possibly be arguing that her donating the $2,000...is an important element in a story regarding her termination for alleged leaks...
Precisely. I am not arguing that. And apparently, neither are you. In fact, the only purpose for including that part of the story (much less doing so in a BAMBY-declared relevant pre-jump fashion!) is to suggest that she may have been somehow set against the Bush WH.
Meanwhile, a graf casting doubt---doubt that was subsequently reinforced by MM's lawyer's statement---on the assertion that MM was the source of the Dana Priest expose is buried at the end of the same article.
Seems like the sort of evidence of bias that you like to bring up when it suits your purposes.....
That was my point.
j
Post a Comment
<< Home