No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say

[Pryderi]

No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say
Republicans See Little Risk In Pushing Modest Ethics Bill

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A06

The scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been a Washington obsession for months, but Republican lawmakers who returned from a two-week recess this week said they felt free to pass a relatively tepid ethics bill because their constituents rarely mention the issue.

The House is scheduled to vote today on ethics legislation to increase lobbyists' disclosures and require lawmakers to own up to the earmarks, or narrow projects, that they insert into appropriations bills. But the measure would not restrict the gifts or meals provided by lobbyists as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had proposed in January, nor would it expand the number of enforcers of lobbying rules and laws.

Lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is more limited in its scope and impact than the provisions promised by congressional leaders immediately after Abramoff's guilty plea to federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud nearly four months ago. But they say they do not feel compelled to push more stringent measures partly because voters do not appear to be demanding them. "We're all being rushed into a bill," said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio). "We panicked, and we let the media get us panicked."

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602416_pf.html

Yeah. Voters don't want anything to change.

[rodeodance]

1. So--they play up on our low expectations of them. Interesting!

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."

[Pryderi]

2. Aren't people going to jail? I thought the GOP were the moral party of

law and order.

[greekspeak]

3. The rhetoric of homophobia and xenophobia are "just political" too

They are all about pandering to the Puke's close minded, hatemongering, self-righteous base. But they don't have any qualms about constitutional amendments that enshrine hate and Draconian immigration legislation. Most of them could care less, but are willing to exploit these for the sake of politics. Fucking. Two. Faced. Hypocrites. Nancy L. Johnson, from the bottom of my heart, go CHENEY yourself.

[acmejack]

4. I think Ms. Johnson needs to hear from us!

Can we muster up a few hundred letters today? Or better yet phone calls?

[Pryderi]

6. Judging from the response to this topic, I don't think we could muster 2

[JeffR]

5. Smart Dem candidates this year

will raise the issue on the stump, keep it mentioned in whatever media coverage they can garner, and take the issue door to door.

And Nancy L. Johnson and the rest of her sorry-ass party can eat it.