Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,594
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 176:
Line 176: + + + + + + +
→My Most Humble Edits: response
In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
*''the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran''
:Going into the relationship between the mayor of San Fransisco & the San Fransisco's highest ranking member of its Congressional delegation may be somewhat extraneous, but it could be done if necessary.
*Pork is what is is.
*''Republicans charge''
:This is AP reporting; we are not AP.
*Given it is the rich responsible for all the worlds problems, from oppressing minimum wage workers to Halliburton starting the war in Iraq, this is an extremely important point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)