Boehner ‘defies order to remove earmark site.’
Boehner ‘defies order to remove earmark site.’
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is resisting an order by House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard to remove the site earmarkreform.house.gov, which promotes GOP efforts on reducing earmarks. Roll Call reports:
House Administration regulations require all House.gov domain names to be “recognizably derivative or representative” of the name of the Member or office sponsoring the site, according to [Bears spokesman Jeff] Ventura. Domain names may not be a slogan or imply that the “House endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity or service,” Ventura added.
Boehner, however, said that “thousands” of people have visited his site, and moving it would cause “confusion.” (More on conservatives’ actual earmark efforts here.)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Without consequences, such orders are meaningless.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:01 amBoehner, however, said that “thousands†of people have visited his site, and moving it would cause “confusion.â€
Hey dipsh*t, ask your webmaster to work with your ISP to re-direct traffic from the old site, to the new LEGAL one.
FCUKING MORONS.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:03 amI'm confused here. Is Boehner actually doing the "right" thing here?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:03 amyou can go to the website and leave a message. I just did. Why doesn't everyone else.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:04 amI support any effort to reduce earmarks (actually I support their elimination altogether), no matter which party is doing it -- as long as the reform affects both parties equally.
That said -- Boehner should have set up his website according to the regulations at the getgo. Then he wouldn't have a problem with the "confusion" that moving it will have, would he?
Follow the rules, Boehner. Try not to play the idiot card.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:05 amBoehner, however, said that “thousands†of people have visited his site, and moving it would cause “confusion.â€
February 25th, 2008 at 11:06 amSo he's actually aguing that he has to continue to break the law because he might confuse some people? Are republicans really that stupid?
Are republicans really that stupid?
Comment by Bobwurst — February 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Apparently so... after all, they did put Botch in the WH not just once, but TWICE.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 amHe's such a . . . . boner . .
February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 amBoner has confused me for years. Is he real? Is anyone really that tan? Is chain smoking a prerequisite for office in Ohio? Did he really cover up Hasturd's ass? How is it possible to cover an ass that size?
Does he only cry partisan tears? How many earmarks has the 'ol Boner chalked up? How many has he voted against?
Ohio confuses me, but not as much as Boner.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 amWaterboard the bastard.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:13 amJail his ass for contempt - NOW!
February 25th, 2008 at 11:18 amWhen you deny and defy reality, everything else is easy.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:23 amHas Boner started crying yet?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:23 amDid Boner cry?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:24 amBoner is just angry because he and his fellow reich-wingers can no longer control the earmarks.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:26 amNot only do the Bears need a spokesman, they desperately need a quarterback as well.
Beard's ?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:27 amMore likely 10s of visitors have found the site, mostly by accident. They were looking for ear piercing.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:27 amAre republicans really that stupid?
Comment by Bobwurst — February 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
yes.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:29 amHere's a replacement URL for Boner:
BonersPorkBarrelFollies.house.gov
February 25th, 2008 at 11:29 amDid he also cry?
February 25th, 2008 at 11:30 amDid he also cry?
Comment by tombaker — February 25, 2008 @ 11:30 am
naw, he forgot to pull a nosehair out this time.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:32 amAre republicans really that stupid?
Comment by Bobwurst — February 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
yes.
Comment by Wayne — February 25, 2008 @ 11:29 am
No. The Republicans aren't that stupid, but they think we are, and all things considered..... so far they're right.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:42 amThis would have made for the perfect '.xxx' domain debut.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:46 amChanging the name of the site does not change the IP address. Its just a matter of creating a redirect page and updating the DNS
February 25th, 2008 at 11:52 amNo. The Republicans aren’t that stupid, but they think we are, and all things considered….. so far they’re right.
Comment by swordsbane — February 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Seeing as Bush was "elected" twice and no one rioted in the streets, I can't argue
February 25th, 2008 at 11:57 amThe Republicans aren’t that stupid,
Thumbing one's nose at current laws and behaving as if one is above the law, is very, VERY stupid.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:57 amLast August, the office of the U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Daniel Beard, approved House Republican Leader John Boehner’s (R-OH) request to create the site, and since its launch earlier this month, it has been visited by thousands of online visitors and garnered subsequent media attention. Beard’s office has now ordered the site be removed, however, prompting Leader Boehner to protest the decision in a letter sent to the CAO yesterday afternoon:
“I am writing today to register my protest over this belated change, and to request a detailed explanation of the events that led your office to make this dramatic reversal,†wrote Boehner. “Changing its address now will inevitably hamper the effectiveness of the new website, much to the convenience of the majority that runs the House.â€
Coincidentally, the move comes just as Rep. Murtha, a close ally of Speaker Pelosi, won the title of 2007’s “Porker of the Year.†Murtha, a well-known champion of wasteful earmarks, won the award from the non-partisan government spending watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). According to a press release from CAGW:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=84326
Must be a coincidence just like the problems with the "60 Minutes" program in Alabama. Seems like Dems and Repubs alike use pork to further the interests of their parties and their careers to the detriment of the country. Seems like politicians change their positions on this issue depending upon who is in the majority. Kind of takes the air out of your sails when you try to defend your party on the issue when they are all equally guilty when you average it over the shifts in power. ;)
February 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pmAre Dems for or against removing all earmarks? I know some repugs are for it and some are against it. Where do the Dems fall in this debate?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pmWhere do the Dems fall in this debate?
Hey, more proof of the complete stupidity of the Right.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pmThumbing one’s nose at current laws and behaving as if one is above the law, is very, VERY stupid.
Comment by DieNowForPeace — February 25, 2008 @ 11:57 am
No, its typical Republicans criminal behavior.
"Impeachment off the table" as well as not enforcing the laws and the Constitution, is as stupid as a bag of hair
February 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI'm generally OK with earmarks. I would like to see Murtha secure funds to repair any bridges he can in his district, as Penn is estimated one of the worst states for bridge efficiency.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pmAre republicans really that stupid?
Comment by Bobwurst — February 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
This is rhetorical, right?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:15 pm"as Penn is estimated one of the worst states for bridge efficiency."
Comment by McWars — February 25, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Boy, you got that right! We just had a bridge here on the southside of Pittsburgh drop 8 inches and according to some reports we are due for a complete catastrophic failure of one or more of the bridges that were built like the one that collapsed out in the mid-west recently.
I do my best to stay off of as many of them as I can but we have more bridges here in the "Burgh" than just about anywhere else in the world, so it's difficult to stay off all of them.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pmIn spirit, I'm with Boehner on this one. Earmarks have done WAY more harm than good and have enabled all kinds of corruption and waste. But Boehner doesn't have the right to use a .gov address...not to mention the fact that Republicans have used earmarks just as "liberlly" as Democrats have. What a circus. http://newsprism.wordpress.com
February 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm#28 - "Where do the Dems fall in this debate?" Comment by Roger_Roger — February 25, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Depends on which Dem's you're talking to/about!
Just like all politics, both sides claim to smell like roses, when it's more like roses dipped in excreta. ;-)
February 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pmComment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — February 25, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Penn attracts me for its rich college establishment, and I would love to move up to the northeast someday, if not Penn, but I'm sorry that you live in a minefield. Apparently Republicans think we should live in the early 1900s forever by coping with a crumbling infrastructure. To them, diverting billions in needed cash flow to crumble the infrastructure of some "thirdworldgodforsakenhellholeofacountry" is the better investment.
Anything but the people.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:02 pmIn spirit, I’m with Boehner on this one.
Comment by dictatortot — February 25, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
The issue is not about earmarks, the issue is the web site is using a .gov address and is political ( pro gop ) in nature, which is a violation of the LAW.
So do you agree with Bone-head breaking the law?
February 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pm36, McWars,
When our bridge collapsed our (R) Gov. immediately tried to distance himself from the issue. Typical R, no accountability. Now they're trying to limit personal damage amounts to about $400K.
Many of the bridge victims have already surpassed that amount.
State legislators just returned last week. First order, a transportation bill. Our (R) Gov vetoed it...'too expensive'.
Don't let Penn copy our Rightards; people will die, but the admin will ignore their plight.
'Living with Less in the Land of Pawlenty'. Zz
February 25th, 2008 at 1:09 pmSomeone needs to take hold of mr bohner's hand and escort him to the "time out" corner of the room and make him write "I must abide by the rules of the House. And rules are not made to be broken."
February 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pmBut don't forget to get him a handkerchief for when he begins to sob uncontrollably.
Boehner, however, said that “thousands†of people have visited his site, and moving it would cause “confusion.â€
sh*t-head Boehner thinks everyone is as easily confused as he is.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:35 pmSeems like Dems and Repubs alike use pork to further the interests of their parties and their careers to the detriment of the country.
A little misdirection and spin by a troll? Seems that way since the only person mentioned in this spin was Murtha, when we all know that the two Senators from Alaska are top pork barrel specialists. The issue here is what Boner named the site not whether or not Republicans and Democrats are for pork. He needs to identify it so that people know that this is not a congressionally sanctioned site. He can name it republiscum-earmarkreform.house.gov and I'm sure the by House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard will be satisfied. The misrepresentation of the name of the site seems to be the issue.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pmComment by McWars — February 25, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Pittsburgh's a great place to live, save the weather from Jan-Mar.
Some Great Schools, Culture, et al but the state is really like two big cities on either side with Alabama in between. ;)
I'm sure you heard the recent statements by our Governor regarding Obama's electability here in PA? What a complete tool!
February 25th, 2008 at 2:40 pmAre Dems for or against removing all earmarks? I know some repugs are for it and some are against it. Where do the Dems fall in this debate?
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 25, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Pretty much the same. Earmarks are generally supported by the people who depend on them for their livelihood, and found to be repugnant by those who have not yet sold their souls to the political system. Party really doesn't matter.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pmI’m sure you heard the recent statements by our Governor regarding Obama’s electability here in PA? What a complete tool!
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — February 25, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Absolutely agreed. I expected more than that coming from a democratic governor. Not a good assumption for a leader to make about his electorate. He doesn't even have to speculate on the adult population in Penn (untrue), the college population is well numbered and willing to accept new ideas for change. I couldn't imagine my democratic governor saying that here in Virginia. Heck, we're probably classified as more of a red state in comparison to Penn., and we overwhelmingly sent Obama one step toward the nomination!
February 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pmHere's some links for upright left who seems to be obsessed with only the left side of the pork aisle.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/stevens-inouye-top-defense-earmarks-list-at-over-180m-each-byrd-next-at-166m-2007-09-18.html
Here's the founder of his "non-partisan government spending watchdog group"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Peter_Grace
Doesn't sound very "non-partisan" to me.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pmA fact that many people seem to miss is that a lot of the earmarks are going to very worthwhile projects. What I would like to see is for there to be one "earmark" bill per session with full disclosure of all earmarks contained in the bill. Then forbid earmarks anywhere else.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pmHere’s some links for upright left who seems to be obsessed with only the left side of the pork aisle.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 25, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
You read this:
"Seems like Dems and Repubs alike use pork to further the interests of their parties and their careers to the detriment of the country. Seems like politicians change their positions on this issue depending upon who is in the majority. Kind of takes the air out of your sails when you try to defend your party on the issue when they are all equally guilty when you average it over the shifts in power."
And from that, you got that I'm obsessed with lefty pork? Did you miss the words "Dems and Repubs alike" and "politicians" as opposed to Dem politicians? Or do you consider pointing out that Dems are as guilty as Repubs if you go back to times when Dems were in control as "obsessed with only the left side of the pork aisle. I clearly pointed out that both are guilty of using earmarks, often inappropriately. Occasionally, it's for good causes that no few would argue against. In that case, it needs to be openly appropriated, not slipped in at the last minute in a necessary bill that has been debated. Jim Wright, a Dem who I supported until his corruption became public, earmarked fed money for the Forth Worth Stockyards. There are some cool events at the Fort Worth Stockyards. But there is no way renovations there should have been federally funded.
As for the website, it states that Beard approved the website last August and only asked that it be discontinued after Murtha was named Porker of the Year by CAGW. (A quote from the site, not from me.) Boehner could well be in the wrong if there is more to the story than what TP cited. I followed TP's link and posted the other side for the sake of fairness. ;)
February 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm