by skeptic06, Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:30:27 AM EDT
Media coverage of the Mollahan business over the weekend has been the sound of crickets chirping. (For my earlier Mollahan pieces, go here.)
The CQ blog has an interesting snippet or two, though.
On Monday, Mollohan's campaign reported raising $412,000 in the first three months of this year, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.
That compares to the $563,000 that Mollohan raised for his entire 2004 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Alan Lee Parks with 68 percent of the vote. His first-quarter take also was more than the congressman raised in each of his five re-election campaigns between 1994 and 2002.
by skeptic06, Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:14:09 AM EDT
I wrote a diary last week on a weird little attack piece on bloggers wrapped up in a Dem pander-job by Amy Sullivan.
One of those bloggers criticized was our very own Matt Stoller. Another was David Sirota.
My effort elicited no response.
by skeptic06, Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:27:09 AM EDT
[Following up yesterday's diary.]
Jodi Rudoren (née Wilgoren) weighs in with a piece in the Times today.
She identifies five nonprofits which have benefited from Mollohan earmarks to the total sum of $250m:
The first and largest is the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, which is absorbing the troubled Institute for Scientific Research. Another, the Canaan Valley Institute, works on stream restoration and wastewater treatment. The Vandalia Heritage Foundation redevelops dilapidated buildings, and the MountainMade Foundation helps artisans market wares.
by skeptic06, Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:08:38 PM EDT
The first I heard was Matt's snippet on Breaking Blue.
Raw Story has the most detailed piece I can find.
I've just a couple of things:
by skeptic06, Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:48:27 PM EDT
Just reading a thoroughly Pollyanna-ish piece about the Congressional Dems by Amy Sullivan under the hed Not As Lame As You Think.
(Round here, that would be ironic. To judge from her piece, she means it straight.)
It's in love with the terrible 2006=1994 analogy. Pretty poor stuff.
But includes the following:
the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) issued a crowing press release claiming that Nancy Pelosi had removed [Louise] Slaughter's report [America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption] from her leadership website because of GOP pressure. Staff for both Slaughter and Pelosi got a chuckle out of the release because they knew the website simply automatically rotated the items featured on the homepage. But liberal bloggers jumped at the bait. To them, it was proof of Democratic cowardice. Using the NRCC release as his source, Matt Stoller at MyDD.com complained about Democratic "knuckling-under." David Sirota went further, writing: "[T]he House Democratic Leadership publicly pee[d] down its leg in knee-shaking fright, removing a major report on Republican corruption from its website. Why? Because they feared the GOP would yell at them about it."
Those silly bloggers screw up again!
The rotation story sounds to me like a fable devised by some desperate staffer. But it could be true, I suppose.
Or has this already been put to bed when I wasn't paying attention?