Napkingate, or How to Spot a Bollixed Redstate Story

There's one way you can always tell that a Redstate contributor has bungled his facts and is about to completely bollix a story. The story always includes a spectacular detail that's both weird and entirely irrelevant.

It works like this:

Redstate writer gets wind of a story that sounds like it might be mildly negative for Democrats

The writer realizes the facts of the story aren't strong enough to gin up outrage among the site's readers

The writer hunts for a single detail to "prove" Democrats are inept (or corrupt or hypocritical or just plain baaaad)

The writer hypes the detail far beyond its actual signifigance

The writer forgets to get the actual story right and spends his time hollering about the detail

Example? Sure, you bet.

Redstate honcho "Erick" posts Dems to Stay Up Late Tonight to Defend Culture of Corruption!

Here's the nut of the story, according to Mr. Erick:

House Democrats, in a brazen attempt to defend the Culture of Corruption, are set to alter House Ethics Rules in a way openly supportive of Democrats who might be found guilty by courts of law of corruption or bribery related to the passage of legislation.

In the remainder of the post, Mr. Erick asserts:

Under present House rules, members stand to lose their pension if convicted of some crimes

Democrats intended to use H.R. 476 to change the rules to create a two-year period during which convicted members of Congress could keep their pensions

The GOP-led Congress cut off pensions to convicted members

Dems wrote an amendment (ON A PAPER NAPKIN!!!) to change the effective date of the bill

Dems were forced to delay a vote on the measure because of GOP maneuvering

On Monday night, Redstate bumped this item to the top of the page, complete with the patented Redstate flashing red Outrage Beacon to tell their readers that the story is Real Important. But it's a sure bet Mr. Erick has the story entirely wrong. Why?

Because the part about the napkin is in large type, underlined, and featured as an "update" to the story. It's weird and irrelevant, therefore the story is bollixed.

So how did Mr. Erick do? Let's see, that would be:

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Half credit (but only if one is generous), and

Wrong

In a word, bollixed.

Here's what Mr. Erick would have learned had he not been so fascinated with that paper napkin:

Current House ethics rules do not deprive a member convicted of a crime of his pension. Duke Cunningham will get his pension. Bob Ney will get his as well. Jim Traficant and Dan Rostenkowski can collect too.

There were three bills before the House that would change federal law (not House ethics rules) to take away pension benefits from members convicted of certain crimes--H.R. 14, H.R. 466, and H.R. 476. They differ in the list of crimes covered and some administrative details. The bill that eventually passed--H.R. 476 had 30 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

The GOP-led Congress did not cut off pension benefits to anyone, even when they had the chance. A 1996 bill that would have done so passed the House 390-32, but the GOP-led Senate failed to even take it up.

There was indeed an amendment that changed the effective date of the new law, and it was made by agreement with Republican house leadership.

(Was the amendment written on a paper napkin? It's not clear. According to the Congressional Record, Mark Kirk (R-IL) asks the presiding officer, Jim McGovern (D-MA) if the amendment is written on a napkin. McGovern directs Kirk to go to the clerk's desk and see for himself. Kirk says he takes that to mean yes. The question is never answered by the chair, but it's both weird and irrelevant and therefore the right stuff to amp up the story.)

The final vote on the bill was delayed by a day, but not because of Republican maneuvering or Redstate's glaring spotlight on Democratic misdeeds. In fact, when Steny Hoyer (D-MD) moved to table the bill, most of the votes to keep debate open were from Republicans. The real reason is far more mundane. And it's on the record. Mr. Hoyer:

This bill is straightforward and, as I
say, for all intents and purposes has
been passed. I want to tell everybody, I
think we are going to roll the vote on
this bill because we don’t want anybody
to miss it. There are 11 Members
on each side absent because of planes
that have not flown on schedule because
of weather. And it is an equal
number on each side, so we are going to
wait. (CR H813, 1/22/2007)

The story wasn't a total washout for Redstate's Mr. Erick, however. He did get one key fact right. The original bill called for an effective date two years out--January 2, 2009. Why?

Because the Senate's version of the same bill set the effective date of the law as January 2, 2009. (John Kerry is the sponsor! Fire up the Outrage Beacon!) However, it's not a "brazen attempt to defend the culture of corruption" as Mr. Erick would have it. Instead, it's a brazen attempt to observe the plain language of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Does the new law "vary the compensation" for Senators and Representatives? I suppose one could argue it doesn't, but Hoyer provides a plausible--and documented--reason for the language of the Senate version of the pension bill:

The bill was amended, the gentleman
is correct, within the last few hours.
The date was changed at the request of
Mr. BOEHNER. I happen to agree with
Mr. BOEHNER that the date of 2009,
which was in the bill, and I know Mrs.
BOYDA, I talked to Mrs. BOYDA about
it, she agreed with the change as well.
The change was made because it was
Mr. BOEHNER’s feeling, and I think the
minority’s feeling, that the bill ought
to go into effect immediately.
The reason the date was put in as
2009 because that is what the Senate
bill does under the constitutional provision
of the 27th amendment, where
compensation of a Member may not be
changed during the course of their
term. So it was made effective at the
next term.(CR H813, 1/22/2007)

Hoyer goes on to explain that after speaking with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt, he agrees with the date change. Although the new law may violate the 27th Amendment, the three of them (and the bill's sponsor, Nancy Boyda (D-KS)) agree to let some joker who has just lost his pension for being a crook try to take it to court.

House Democrats like the change in the effective date. House Republicans like the change. Everybody likes the change. But it might have been written on a napkin, therefore, Democrats are Real Bad.