It is really too bad that John shut down the Bay Area Houston website last week -- I'd love to get his take on this story.

A meeting behind a church with $10,000 cash changing hands, five-figure gifts for a city councilman's "birthday party" and a mistress funneling bribes through a sham consulting company were among details spelled out Monday in a federal indictment alleging corruption at Dallas City Hall.

The 166-page indictment accuses state Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill of extortion and bribery in soliciting and taking payments from affordable housing developers.

Former City Councilman James Fantroy was indicted separately on a charge that he embezzled more than $5,000 from traditionally black Paul Quinn College, where he was a director and treasurer of a program that received federal money.

In all, 16 people were indicted following an FBI-led public corruption probe that burst into view more than two years ago when agents raided city offices.

Hodge, Hill and others are accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars from real estate developer Brian Potashnik in exchange for helping his company obtain federal tax credits for low-income housing projects in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

The fact that the party affiliation of all but one of these individuals is left off this story is troublesome, but no matter -- I'm shocked that Rep. Hodge was identified by party. Democrats rarely get so labeled --pr at least not early enough in the story for people to pay attention to it.

But here is my question -- when will the "good government" folks of the Left, the ones who want to highlight every hint of scandal around a Republican and demand that they be disciplined, expelled, or forced to resign, insist that Rep. Terri Hodge must leave the Texas House immediately?

Or are they going to do a William Jefferson, and insist that we wait for the charges to be resolved in a court of law before anyone says she is guilty and must surrender her seat?

In other words, will Texas Democrats practice a little affirmative action and treat her differently than Tom DeLay because she is a black, female Democrat?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Urban Grounds, Riehl World View, Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 5 kb.

After all -- this simply proves that the American people are ignorant of the financial realities of their preferred option in Iraq, and probably don't really know what they want or what is needed in Iraq in the first place.

There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

OK, so that means that the people want a sharp reduction in the number of troops in Iraq and a quick retreat from the field without victory -- right?

At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.

So what the American people think the President's plans are about right or even too quick to bring troops home.

But then there is this.

Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq policies, while a third think the Democrats have gone too far.

Which I suppose could be interpreted as support for the pell-mell retreat that the Left has been advocating for the last year, with a great skeedaddle from Iraq with America's tail tucked between her legs.

So how do we reconcile these three results? My answer -- we have to recognize that the American people don't understand what it costs to keep the war going in a manner that accords with their wish, which seem to be victory. After all, it is pretty clear that the President's plan is about right int he eyes of most Americans -- but that they don't like the price tag for it. Unfortunately, this indicates that the American people really don't know what it costs to keep an operation like this one going -- and trying to do it on the cheap would be disastrous. That first set of numbers is therefore irrelevant if one is to accept the second set of numbers as valid.

And what of the third set of numbers? I'd argue that it shows that the American people want the Congress to keep up the pressure on the Administration to remember that this cannot be an open-ended commitment, and that we ultimately do need to draw down our forces in Iraq.

But then again, that is already the position of the Bush administration -- though you generally would not know it from the media coverage that has been given.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.