DEMOCRATS, CAN YOU HANDLE TRUTH?

america, wake up! do you remember just a short time ago when the dems were running for congress on a promise to end the war? plus, there were additional promises made. but, regardless whether you remember or not, the bottom line is: the dems took control of congress & you are now experiencing their lack of leadership for this country. their inability to get things done has gave them a dismal approval rating of just 12%. they promise you the world & when they don't deliver it, they blame everyone but themselves to include pres bush. true, bush vetoed a lot of bills but, when you look at the language in those bills & the earmarks, you'd have vetowed them also. how can you beleive in them when you have dem senator nancy pelosi, speaker-of-the-house doing this:::::

TimesWatchCNSNewsEyeblastBiz & MediaCulture & MediaTake Action!Free Email Alerts! home blogs about forum contact search account “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” MSM Again Ignores Obama's Abortion RecordOnly six stories in 18 months, none in detail Another Fake NYT finds 'lifelong Republican' who surprisingly loves Obama Sweet-On-Obama SixteenLike March Madness, but in October and with biased journalists House Speaker Pelosi Accused of Earmarking Funds for Husband’s Benefit, Media MumBy Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)May 8, 2007 - 12:00 ET
If Democrats had accused former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) last year of earmarking funds that could help real estate investments owned by his wife, would the media have reported it?
Probably on the front pages of every newspaper, and as the lead story of all of the evening news programs, right?
Well, the Associated Press published a story Monday about current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) possibly earmarking funds that would benefit her husband's investments around the San Francisco Bay. Yet, the media showed virtually no interest (emphasis added):
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.
[…]
Republicans raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House.
Pelosi's measure would authorize 25 (m) million dollars to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.
Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.
Even though this originally appeared on the AP wire at 4:38 PM EST Monday, it appears that none of the cable or broadcast television networks bothered to share the story with their viewers.
Furthermore, although most newspapers did run the story at their respective websites Monday evening, I have been able to identify only one major print publication that bothered to include this in Tuesday’s edition, the New York Post (emphasis added):
"The appearance is obviously not good, and she needs to be forthcoming about how this impacts her financial interest," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told The Post.
[…]
Pelosi's office confirmed that she got the provision included in a water-resources bill, which passed the House April 19.
But House financial-disclosure documents reveal that Pelosi's husband, Paul, owns four commercial real-estate properties near the Embarcadero, which is home to many restaurants and hotels.
The properties earn combined rental income of more than $3 million.
One of the properties is 5,400 feet away from the redevelopment site.
[…]
Speaker Pelosi's role in pushing the project came to light because of new disclosure requirements passed by the Democratic House requiring members to declare when they get special "earmarks" tacked onto legislation.
Democrats put the rules in place after calling to reform Congress in the wake of a series of lobbying scandals and questions about other land deals.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was criticized for getting more than $200 million earmarked for a highway near Illinois property he owned.
The $15 billion water-resources bill comes up for debate in the Senate this week.
Hmmm. So, this will be debated by the Senate this week, but only the Post felt it was necessary to report?
Well, not only the Post, for Congressional Quarterly published this late Monday evening regarding the matter (emphasis added):
“Situations like these are precisely why conservatives have stressed that transparency is the best way to make the system work,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee. “The public can make up their own mind about Speaker Pelosi, the earmark and whether it benefits the businesses that she profits from in the area, but the key is that they are aware of it.”
[…]
Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier.”
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi’s husband, Paul.
“If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water,” said a senior Republican aide. “I don’t see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them.”
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker’s 2006 financial disclosure forms.
The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
CQ identified that this moves to the Senate on Tuesday. Yet, virtually nobody has bothered to report it.
Once again, what would the media have done last year if this involved former Speaker Hastert or former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

AND THIS IS FROM CNN.COM POSTED 6/21/07 ABOUT HOW THOSE DEMS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS WERE GOING TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR EARMARKS. IT REALLY IS AMAZING THAT YOU, WHOEVER VOTED THEM IN, WERE TAKEN BY THEIR PROMISES. THEY HAVE NOT KEPT ONE OF THEM...

Member Center: Sign In Register
International Edition
Home World U.S. Weather Business Sports Analysis Politics Law Tech Science Health Entertainment Offbeat Travel Education Specials Autos I-Reports Tools: Save Print E-mail Most Popular Despite promises, few in House publicize earmarks POSTED: 4:59 p.m. EDT, June 21, 2007 Story Highlights• Only 52 of 435 House members provided information on earmark requests• 68 declined to provide requests; 315 didn't return calls or provide requests• Democrats promised scrutiny of earmarks when they regained Congress• Earmarks -- derided as "pork" -- often fund lawmakers' pet projects
From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston CNN
Adjust font size:(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
Initially, staffers for only 34 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between June 13 and 15 were willing to supply a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1. Some of those 34 staffers simply pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Since CNN aired the results of the survey, bloggers demanded that members of Congress release their requests. The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial asking why members of the Illinois delegation were being so secretive.
On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, a member of the Illinois delegation, posted his more than 100 earmark requests on his Web site, the first presidential candidate to do so.
And 11 more House members released their earmark requests.
Six members of the House said they had no earmark requests.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 315 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't. (Find out how your representative responded)
"As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.
In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks. Those spending requests -- often derided as "pork" -- fund everything from road construction and research grants to ski lifts and minor league baseball diamonds. Legislators view these projects as important proof they are serving their constituents back home.
The 2006 total was 6.2 percent -- more than 2005's $27.3 billion.
When Democrats regained control of Congress last fall, they promised to create the most honest, open Congress in history.
"We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks," Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, "and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."
Democrats said Republicans had corrupted the earmark process while they controlled Congress.
Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House.
Last week, the issue came to a head as the House got bogged down deliberating the budget for the Department of Homeland Security Department.
Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of attempting to bypass debate on questionable earmarks when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, said he would not attach them to legislation until those bills had passed the Senate and House and had been sent to conference committees to work out differences.
Obey said there wasn't time to scrutinize the 32,000 earmark requests and keep the legislation moving. He blamed having to "clean up after" the Republican-controlled Congress for why the requests wouldn't be examined in time. (Watch Obey tell the GOP that Dems had to clean up "your mess" before addressing earmarks )
But House Republicans pointed out that position was counter to Democratic campaign promises and Obey was forced to back down and allow Republicans weeks to examine the earmark requests.
Critics said that doesn't play well with reform-minded taxpayers.
"Their behavior isn't better than the last Congress and in some ways worse because they know they have those requests," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We know they have more than 30,000 letters asking for specific earmarks and they're not letting us see them."
Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste, said the compromise is a step in the right direction but short of promised reforms -- all requests won't be made public, only the ones for which spending requests are approved.
Originally there was going to be no disclosure, now we have some disclosure," Schatz said. "And yet again the judgment will be made by the Appropriations Committee staff."
But others like Public Citizen say the compromise is far from what was promised.
"It violates the whole spirit of the reform, said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the nonpartisan group's Congress Watch.
"We really did expect that earmark requests would be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks," Holman said.
CNN staffers Amanda Sealy and Todd Schwarzschild and interns Rachel Zelkowitz, William Hudson, Rachel Reynolds, Chamise Jones, Haley Van Dyck and Brittany Edney contributed to this report.


THIS IS ME AGAIN. IN SHORT, THE LEADER OF THE DEM PARTY IS JUST AS 'CROOKED' AS EVERYBODY ELSE IN WASHINGTON. SO, IF YOU PULL UP THE RECORDS, WHY CAN YOU FIND 'EARMARKS' IN ABUNDANCE FOR OBAMA & NOT FOR MCCAIN? SHOULDN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING &, THEY ARE NOT BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU. WHERE WAS HIS VOICE-IN-OBJECTION TO THIS SPENDING?

&, what disturbs me the most is, you are about to elect the most liberal, passive & deceptive person there is, to the office of PRESIDENT without challenging him on his past or his record.