Friday, June 08, 2007

DCCC Pressures Blunt on Alaska Colleague

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a curious e-mail that pressures Rep. Roy Blunt to hold his House Republican colleagues accountable for "unethical earmarks."

The release notes that earlier this week, Whip Blunt "made clear that Members should be held to the high ethical standard in the House Code of Official Conduct. Today, Mr. Blunt has an opportunity to apply his new standard."

The DCCC said Republican Congressman Don Young – from Alaska – is under scrutiny for securing a $10 million earmark to study building a road in Florida, which directly benefited a campaign contributor.

“On Tuesday, Republican Whip Blunt said that his Members should uphold a high ethical standard and not bring disrepute on the House. Today, it’s clear that the revelation of Representative Don Young’s pay-to-play earmarking clearly does not meet Mr. Blunt’s standard,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Whip Blunt must hold Mr. Young accountable if he is serious about Republicans upholding his new ethical standard.”


Paul Seale said...

Alright Dave,

Let me put the cookie jar on the bottom shelf for you.

A couple of post a go you complain about Republicans not trusting you. There are many, many reasons which I will not go into for lack of time.

What I will say is that this post is a perfect example of what is wrong with your reporting.

What is posted here is a one sided mark up of something sent out by the DCCC with no comment from the Blunt camp or even a mention of ear mark corruption which the Democrats themselves committ and you either do not know of or refuse to report on.

Case in point would be the John Murtha earmark of about 32 million for a duplicate agency which lays within his own district. Because a Republican called Murtha out on it, Murtha threatened to withold any earmarks for the Republican's district - EVER.

Similarly, in this article, you either by choice or because you didnt know, failed to mention to viewers that Democrats have now moved the earmarking process to conference. That means the public has less access to view who and what is being shoved into bills.

If you want respect from Republican viewers (and candidates) I would suggest in a constructive manner to start reporting the w h o l e story - and report it correctly within the proper context.

If you would like an open and honest dialogue regarding this, Gene and Brad both have my email or we can debate the matter.

Either way I hope this is taken in a constructive manner and will restore the news product to what it once was.

Respectfully yours,

Paul Seale
KY3 Webmaster 2001-2002

David Catanese said...


The problem here is that you may not understand my aim with this political blog.

The idea is to throw lots of different political information at our audience in real time. Each post isn't meant to be -- and can't be -- completely 100% "fair and balanced" all the time.

I decide to post items for lots of different reasons. Many times they include stories that I've spent time on and represent many points of view. Other times, they don't. There are press releases you would never see in the newspaper or broadcast medium. The idea is to be able to get more information out to you -- the news consumer -- and let you decide what is relevant and important.

That's the point of a blog. It's a completely different format than the KY3 Newscasts. And because of the time and effort we must spend on our television stories during the day, making phone calls for reaction for each and every entry isn't plausible.

We've published similiar types of stories that criticize Democratic politicos. But, not surprisingly, you are silent on them.

The problem with your perspective, Paul, is that you see everything through a partisan lense. Every move we make is a partisan, biased judgement, in your estimation.

You should take the time to examine your own motives and perspectives when you read a story and critique it.

The "news product" you speak of is changing. The rules remain blurry. We are still learning some of them. But a blog is meant to throw a variety of news snippets out to you as quickly as possible -- and then allow any member of the public to respond -- to agree, or disagree, or deem it irrelevant. We don't ever censor your critiques -- as harsh as they may be.

That's the nature of a blog. It allows you to voice your complaints with the information presented, almost immediately.

So, in essence, your complaint about my post about Blunt is a perfect example of how this is supposed to work.

But next time, when a post enrages you -- take a minute and ask yourself if you would feel the same way if it involved a member of the opposing party.

I'm happy to have this debate, and open up my mind to how I can better do my job.

But only if you are able to open up your mind as well.

Dave Catanese