Dedicated to the proposition that Nancy Boyda is a one termer.

Monday, October 1, 2007

The Problem With Nancy

Nancy Boyda is a "justifier." She feels like she needs to justify her existence, and when she screws up, she feels like she needs to justify her mistake.

When you're in the public eye and your words are on the record, sometimes being a justifier, gets you in trouble because you start making stuff up on the spot.

For instance, Nancy Boyda told a CBS Evening News correspondent that the Lansing prison museum was a memorial for fallen prison guards - seven in Leavenworth County according to her interview with WIBW.

Problem - the Mayor of Lansing didn't say anything about the museum being a memorial (and this guy loves to talk about this museum, so it's not like he wouldn't have mentioned it).

Next, Boyda goes to some lengths to say it's ok for the federal government to invest $100,000 when private funds are going to raise $3 million - roughly 3% of the total cost. OK, maybe we could accept that. Except, Boyda asked for nearly $1.2 million - roughly 40% of the total cost.

Then, let's talk about earmarks in general. Nancy Boyda campaigned against wasteful earmarking in Washington, DC. She then told CBS news that she pretty much just made every request that came into her office. Um, no review to eliminate projects or no prioritizing of projects that would do the most public good - just ask for all of them? News flash, that's not eliminating waste, that's adding to it.

And, then there was "the other people are doing it" justification. In essence, Boyda said, if President Bush can spend money on the war without being questioned, then I can spend money on a prison museum. Nancy, I'd say the President has been questioned extensively about his spending on the war, by Congress, in the media, in the blogosphere, etc, etc, etc . . . so let's stay focused on what you're doing.


Anonymous said...

This is exactly what a member of Congress should do- bring money back to the district.

And, to clarify a lie you told- Boyda never said she approved ever earmark that walked in the door- she said she asked for the ammount of money asked for in the earmarks she did submit. There is a WORLD of difference there.

Anonymous said...

No. A member of Congress should judiciously bring home money for the district.

Here's the quote from CBS news story: "We get all kinds of requests (for earmarks) and, for the most part, we made the request that we were asked," Boyda told me.

Anonymous said...

yes, indeed, that's exactly what she said...they made the request for the amount asked for- that doesn't say at all they submitted every single request, just that the ones they did submit the did so as submitted

Anonymous said...

I just heard that Jim Ryun once used his Congressional influence to get a sweetheart deal on some Capitol Hill real estate. A Russian oil company laundered money through a phony "profamily" organization in order to purchase a townhouse and then resell it to the Congressman at significantly below market value. We wouldn't have heard about this, but the lobbyist who coordinated the deal ended up in a federal prison on corruption and bribery conviction.

Anonymous said...

You just heard this?

Johnny on the spot aren't you?

Thanks for paying attention to the '06 election.

Anonymous said...

Let's say she didn't submit every request (just nearly every request as she said), then why not scrutinize the actual request to see if the amount was justified. Boyda said she didn't even know what this money would be spent on . . . that still doesn't make her look very good . . .

Blog Archive

E-Mail Me