PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi Hasn't Drained The Swamp of House Corruption


Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 07:43 PM
So much for the promised House cleaning, eh? Surprise, surprise....bipartisanship, at its finest.

:shake:

http://www.alternet.org/story/53361/
Jefferson May Drown But Pelosi Hasn't Drained The Swamp of House Corruption


By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media
Posted on June 6, 2007, Printed on June 13, 2007

The question was never whether Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson would be indicted but when. Now that the inevitable has happened and the scandal tainted Congressman has been hit with a 16-count bribery indictment that could land him in jail for decades where does that leave the promise House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi made last year to "drain the swamp." By that she meant that she and House Democrats would cleanse the House of the rampant corruption, cronyism and favoritism that have come to be its trademark.

Jefferson, of course, was the lightening rod for Pelosi's political grandstanding on ethics reform. But he was a soft mark. There was the mountain of federal documents, an incriminating videotape, plea bargains by aides and a business associate, an FBI raid on his office, a prior ethics complaint against him by a congressional watchdog group, and his sordid history of deal making. The luckless Jefferson also fell victim to bad political timing. With the November 2006 mid term elections then only a few months away, Democrats badly need a hot button issue to tap public fury at a Wild West, deal-making Congress where anything and everybody is for sale.

The legal and political tumble of one politically brittle Congressman, though, hardly signals the dawning of a new day for ethics reform. In the months since Pelosi swore to clean the swamp the only tangible reform she can point to is a tougher restriction on gift giving. But the big-ticket reforms such as the creation of an independent panel to investigate ethics violations has withered on the vine. The House has had ample chance to cleanse its stable before Pelosi dumped Jefferson from the House Ways and Means Committee last year. And even more chance to nail down the reforms during the months that Jefferson twisted and squirmed in the wind waiting for the legal hammer to fall.

Each time it deliberately fumbled the ball. In 2005, the House shoved through a rule that if the ethics panel chair, either the ranking Republican or Democrat fail to approve an ethics complaint for investigation within 45 days, it was dead. In other words, no matter how blatant a house member's action, that meant no probe, no violation, and no sanctions. Democrats blasted the rule change as a shabby and very transparent cover to shield Texas Republican Tom De Lay from an ethics probe, or worse.

It was. Yet, the ethics panel took the hint. It reduced its staff, and barred outside groups from filing ethics complaints against House members. Under the new rule, a complaint from the outside had to be certified by a House member. The chance of that happening is virtually nil. That slammed the door on credible groups that have brought documented complaints of abuse. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, for instance, called for an ethics probe of Jefferson a month before Pelosi made the demand. The citizen's group complaint almost certainly spurred her to act. The rule changes had bipartisan benefit. They assured that complaints against wayward Democrats could also die a quiet death. In 2005, a congressional watchdog groups publicly branded 13 House members as the most corrupt. The unsavory roster included Democrats and Republicans. Jefferson was one of those named.

While Republicans are deservedly lambasted for watering down ethics reform, Democrats have given no public indication that they are in a mood to storm the barricades to wage war publicly against the rule changes. In fact, when Democrats proposed a tepid package of measures that would put clamps on some lobbyist spending, and broaden the category of ethics offenses, they made no effort to get Republicans to endorse the reforms. Whether this was a case of political expediency, partisan politics, or Democrats just thought it was pointless to try to get Republicans to sign on to the reforms, it was still the perfect time to publicly call Republicans on the carpet for obstructing ethics reform.

Jefferson and DeLay's indictments, Randy Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney's jailings, and top gun lobbyist Jack Abramoff's murky dealings, cast on ugly glare on Congressional corruption. In the presidential election battles, Democrats again almost certainly will do everything they can to pin the tag of corruption on Republicans, all the while hoping that the sordid Jefferson affair quickly slips off the public radarscope. But words and media genic posturing can't substitute for an ethics reform law with real bite, and slapping firm penalties on the most outrageous House members that are on the take.

Pelosi called the Jefferson indictment an unacceptable abuse of power. It is, and though he's one of the more blatant House offenders, he's hardly the only offender. In other words, Nancy, the swamp of House wheeling and dealing with impunity still spills over.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson (http://earlofarihutchinson.blogspot.com/) is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the book, The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and the GOP's court of black voters.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/53361/

Logical
06-13-2007, 07:53 PM
Your right Kotter, she better Start with Duncan Hunter after she finishes with Jefferson. Seems my congressman took $36,000 in potentially illegal campaign contributions. Ooops.

Duncan Hunter Keeps Bogus Plane Alive Through Earmarks

Presidential candidate and Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has kept a useless defense project alive for years even though it has been repeatedly rejected by Pentagon officials because the project's maker is a regular contributor to his campaigns, reports ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/the_aircraft_th.html).
An experimental plane that is designed to take off straight up and then fly 700 mph has never gotten more than a few feet off the ground and has crashed four times in four years. Useless, you say? Completely. And the Pentagon agrees. Military analysts have consistently rejected the aircraft as technically flawed since 1986.
So why does the plane continue to be funded? Because San Diego-area congressmen, who have tons of defense interests and contractors to represent, consistently create earmarks to keep it alive. The biggest offenders are presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, former chairman and now ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, and former congressman Christopher Cox, who is now chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Cox received $18,000 in contributions from the plane's creator, DuPont Aerospace. Hunter has received at least $36,000 from DuPont for his congressional campaigns and current presidential campaign.
There will be a hearing on the plane tomorrow -- you have to love Democratic leadership in Congress; oversight exists! -- and Hunter is expected to testify. Representatives from DuPont will be right there with him, which is fitting because together they've bilked American tax payers for millions.
.

NewChief
06-13-2007, 08:07 PM
Your right Kotter, she better Start with Duncan Hunter after she finishes with Jefferson. Seems my congressman took $36,000 in potentially illegal campaign contributions. Ooops.

She'll probably just nominate him to a committee instead. :cuss:

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 08:13 PM
Your right Kotter, she better Start with Duncan Hunter after she finishes with Jefferson. Seems my congressman took $36,000 in potentially illegal campaign contributions. Ooops.
I'm with you. It's a bipartisan outrage, in my book.

It's all the hypocrits on here who seem to pretend that it's only one party, or the other, that is involved in this sort of crap.

Talk about naive and, frankly, GD stupid. :shake:

:banghead:

noa
06-13-2007, 08:20 PM
I can't believe that the Democrats haven't completely rid our political system of corruption!! ;)

Perhaps they can make modest improvements (like cracking down on earmarks and tightening lobbying restrictions), but I would never expect them to clean up the whole mess. The current structure is simply too sweet for the politicians. Lavish parties and fundraisers thrown in D.C. townhouses, or at fancy steakhouses, paid for by major corporations like Wal-Mart, Fed-Ex, UPS, General Electric etc. This will be a fixture of the political process as long as politicians continue to enjoy themselves. Those kinds of power trips are intoxicating. This system will continue to create Duke Cunninghams and William Jeffersons.

People who elected the Dems to completely clean up politics are akin to voters who elect Republicans to end abortion. Good in principal (for the voters), but will never be accomplished, and so it will always be a point of exploitation for the politicians.

Realistically, there are changes that Dems can make for the better, and I don't think they've delivered nearly enough yet. Still, I have no doubt in my mind that political corruption is going to be an issue for centuries to come, regardless of the party in power. Not meant to be a cop-out, just that expectations should be lowered when it comes to what politicians will deliver.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 08:21 PM
I'm with you. It's a bipartisan outrage, in my book.Suuuure it is.

I can't believe that the Democrats haven't completely rid our political system of corruption!!She's had six whole months!

go bowe
06-13-2007, 08:38 PM
I'm with you. It's a bipartisan outrage, in my book.

It's all the hypocrits on here who seem to pretend that it's only one party, or the other, that is involved in this sort of crap.

Talk about naive and, frankly, GD stupid. :shake:

:banghead:hih hih hih poe crispy...

who gives a shit?

the points being made by either side are either good points or bad points, depending on your point of view...

you can't dismiss good points simply because the advocate for that position is hypocritical (in your view)...

i'm so sick of all this hypocrisy horseshit flying around...

you and your ilk will oten kill the messenger if you don't like what the message is...

c'mon, admit it...

it will make you feel better...

you shouldn't hate me just because i'm naive and gd stupid...

you should hate me because i'm pretter than you... :p :p :p

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 09:13 PM
Suuuure it is.

She's had six whole months!

Call me a liar, if you must....ma'am.

Six months isn't the end of it; but it would be nice to see SOME effort, considering the priority SHE placed on it in getting elected.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 09:14 PM
Oh noes! Pelosa's been in da' orfice for six monts anna she hasn't cleaned up all the messes yet!

What are we gowan to do!?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 09:17 PM
...People who elected the Dems to completely clean up politics are akin to voters who elect Republicans to end abortion. Good in principal (for the voters), but will never be accomplished, and so it will always be a point of exploitation for the politicians.

Realistically, there are changes that Dems can make for the better, and I don't think they've delivered nearly enough yet. Still, I have no doubt in my mind that political corruption is going to be an issue for centuries to come, regardless of the party in power. ..
That's, actually, my point....as well. :clap:

It's just naive, immature, inexperienced, blind, and partisan assholes....from BOTH sides (yes, psicosis...BOTH sides) that refuse to see the truth of what you say....that motivates me to remind them of their selective ignorance and partisan blinders they wish to engage in. :)

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 09:19 PM
Call me a liar, if you must....ma'am.

Six months isn't the end of it; but it would be nice to see SOME effort, considering the priority SHE placed on it in getting elected.I don't know the time frame, but Logical's post seems to suggest an effort, no?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 09:23 PM
hih hih hih poe crispy...

who gives a shit?

the points being made by either side are either good points or bad points, depending on your point of view...

you can't dismiss good points simply because the advocate for that position is hypocritical (in your view)...

i'm so sick of all this hypocrisy horseshit flying around...

you and your ilk will oten kill the messenger if you don't like what the message is...

c'mon, admit it...

it will make you feel better...

you shouldn't hate me just because i'm naive and gd stupid...

you should hate me because i'm pretter than you... :p :p :p

Hypocrisy is often a mask for selective outrage....for partisan motivation....to demagogue and propagandize the opposition.

Hypocrisy is the hallmark or "pretenders," as opposed to REAL concerned, sincere, and genuine folks who are interested in "honest" government.

I see lots and lots of hypocrits around here....so excuse my skepticism; but I assure you....I don't give a damn about who the messenger is, as long as their credibilty is unassailable.

FTR, you may be prettier than me....but I'm no damn hippy. So there.... :harumph:

:p

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 09:24 PM
I don't know the time frame, but Logical's post seems to suggest an effort, no?

A real effort? No.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 09:26 PM
A real effort? No.What is a "real effort" since hearings about possible corruption don't seem to count?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 09:29 PM
What is a "real effort" since hearings about possible corruption don't seem to count?

How about a real effort to FIX the system...which they, clearly, have thus far shown NO interest in. :shrug:

patteeu
06-13-2007, 11:44 PM
Your right Kotter, she better Start with Duncan Hunter after she finishes with Jefferson. Seems my congressman took $36,000 in potentially illegal campaign contributions. Ooops.

Potentially illegal campaign contributions? Does that mean that the article you posted didn't explicitly say they were legal so they are "potentially illegal" or do you have some other reason for saying this?

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:49 PM
Potentially illegal campaign contributions? Does that mean that the article you posted didn't explicitly say they were legal so they are "potentially illegal" or do you have some other reason for saying this?

Because he is being investigated for them locally. He may be in trouble over this but I am pointing out he could still be cleared.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 11:55 PM
Because he is being investigated for them locally. He may be in trouble over this but I am pointing out he could still be cleared.

OK, thanks. It wasn't obvious from the article you quoted and I hadn't heard anything about an investigation so I wasn't sure. :thumb:

jAZ
06-14-2007, 12:04 AM
What is a "real effort" since hearings about possible corruption don't seem to count?
How about a real effort to FIX the system...which they, clearly, have thus far shown NO interest in. :shrug:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sb_01-19.html

Reforms passed in House, Senate
JIM LEHRER: Another issue, David, the 100 hours of the first 100 hours of legislation by the Democratic House is now ended. What kind of grades would you give them?

DAVID BROOKS: It depends on the pieces. Some of the pieces I think were quite good.

I think the lobbying reform, I would give it an A-minus. I think that's a real significant piece of legislation to clean up Washington.

...

JIM LEHRER: I was just wondering how you feel specifically, Mark, on the lobby reform and the ethics stuff, and particularly the Senate passed it yesterday?

MARK SHIELDS: I think the Senate bill passed last night was stronger than either party intended.

JIM LEHRER: There were only two negative votes...

MARK SHIELDS: Only two negative votes. And they felt they had to vote for it. I mean, 45 Republicans had made the mistake of organizing a sort of a mini-filibuster against it and I think really felt the heat and realized that they were out on a limb they didn't want to be.

It did end up winning, you're right, overwhelming support, Jim. The transparency here -- lobbyists have had a habit in the past -- David is aware of this -- not simply $2,100 they can give to your candidacy, but I go around, and I bundle all of these contributions. I get my clients, my associates, and so forth, so then I bring in $100,000 grand to you.

JIM LEHRER: And that's legal.

MARK SHIELDS: And that's been legal, but all of a sudden now...

JIM LEHRER: Because you're the guy who brings it in, even though you...

MARK SHIELDS: I'm getting political credit for it, even though I'm not legally listed as the person.

OK, there's no more bundling. "You have a favorite charity, as a senator." I can't raise money for that any more, in hopes of getting political payoff for it. Everything is out in the open.

It's far more transparent. It's a very, very positive -- I think the 100 days is important, because the Democrats didn't win last November. The Republicans lost. And it was necessary for the Democrats to show that they could do something, that they could run something beyond a two-car funeral.

And I think they did do that. They showed a certain sense of authority, discipline. And I think it's -- I think it's important.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think it's fair to say, David, that, for instance, lobby reform and the ethics stuff that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, it's already passed the House, most of it, at least, would not have happened in a Republican-controlled Congress?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it didn't.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And I think we've mentioned Jeff Flake, who was a true reformer in the House, said, "Well, we didn't do this, and you guys did this." And the Senate is much stronger than the House bill. I mean, the bundling thing, which Mark talked about, sort of is the key.

The House focused on trips and free meals. I think that's all trivial, frankly. I don't think too many congressman have their vote affected by a free steak, maybe lobster, but not steak. But the bundling actually does matter.

Some of the ear-marked transparency, that stuff really does matter, and that will affect things. And the Republicans didn't do it. They wouldn't have cut the oil subsidies the way the Democrats did. So stuff that a lot of Republicans voted for and agree with didn't get passed.

MARK SHIELDS: That was the most impressive, I think, of the six package of bills that passed. They passed with an average of 62 House Republicans voting with them. So this was an entirely different way of operating than in the past, where you just passed with a straight party-line vote; 62 Republicans on the average crossed the line, to support those Democratic proposals.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 07:08 AM
jAZ:

Yup. Yessiree, Bob. That there is some real good reformin' dos Dems got goin' on. Gonna change the world, I tell you.

LMAO

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 08:00 AM
What did she know and when did she know it?

the Talking Can
06-14-2007, 08:24 AM
because the Dems haven't completely solved a problem about which the Republicans did nothing for 6 years, the Dems are to blame???

what kind of partisan douchebag would use such stupid logic?

geez...of course, not one post ever about the still expanding network of corruption between the Republican Party and Jack Abramoff...not isolated individuals, but party wide involvement...

the Republicans, with complete control of the government for 6 years, do nothing and get praise....the Dems do something and receive scorn....so typical, so predictable....

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 09:05 AM
.... do nothing and get praise....the Dems do something and receive scorn....

Please, cite specific example when I've offered any significant "praise" for Republicans? Otherwise, you should really stop embarrasing yourself like this.

My post was more aimed at pointing out hypocrisy of ideological moon bats here, rather than heaping scorn on anyone. Kind of the old, "same stuff different day" and "why should we be surprised by any of this?" sort of statement.....that you zealots find so annoying. But, due to the selective outrage of some, I consider a worthwhile effort.... ;)

Stinger
06-14-2007, 09:20 AM
:shrug:

DoD braces for a fight with Pelosi

By Mike Soraghan
June 14, 2007

Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free.

Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.

“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”

Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels.

Pelosi’s office inquired about such travel on June 1, according to a Department of Defense memo obtained by The Hill.
In a June 8 memo, the head of legislative affairs for the Pentagon, Robert L. Wilkie, told Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he sees Pelosi’s question as a first step toward challenging the policy.

“We were told that the Speaker would expect that members’ children (of married and unmarried [members of Congress]) would not have to reimburse the Treasury,” Wilkie wrote. “We expect future challenges from the House leadership on this policy.”

Pentagon aides did not respond to requests for comment.

But taxpayer watchdog groups and ethics advocates said they were surprised Pelosi would seek more perks for members.

“One of the things she was praised for when she came in was her sweeping reforms on gifts and travel,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “It is very disheartening if she is, in fact, backsliding on this.”

Public Citizen filed a complaint with the IRS last year, saying that family members who receive free travel by accompanying lawmakers should pay taxes on the travel’s value. The complaint focused on privately sponsored travel, but Holman said it should apply to taxpayer-funded travel as well.

“I don’t see any difference,” Holman said.

In its first week with a Democratic majority this year, the House passed what Pelosi called “the toughest congressional ethics reform in history.” It forbade gifts and travel from lobbyists and banned travel on corporate jets. It did not address publicly funded travel such as codels.

Lawmakers’ children currently can travel gratis if they get a waiver, termed an “invitation,” from the secretary of defense, according to Dan Stanley, a former assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Pentagon. He said it was rare for a lawmaker to travel with his or her children.

“Children have always flown as an exception to policy,” Stanley said. “I’m unaware of any substantial policy that would allow children to take the representational role of a spouse.”

The president’s family, such as President Bush’s twin daughters, can travel without reimbursement. They cannot fly commercially for security reasons.

But most executive-branch officials either do not bring family members on military aircraft or reimburse, Stanley said. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would fly with his wife back to Taos, N.M., he said, but was scrupulous about reimbursing.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dod-braces-for-a-fight-with-pelosi-2007-06-14.html

jAZ
06-14-2007, 11:06 AM
...permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”

Two things..

1) What is the "protocol needs"?

2) Military families take military hops for free all the time. Not sure what should be different here (for Dems or Reps).

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:35 AM
...2) Military families take military hops for free all the time. Not sure what should be different here (for Dems or Reps).

Maybe because most members of the military aren't millionaires? :hmmm:

jAZ
06-14-2007, 11:56 AM
Maybe because most members of the military aren't millionaires? :hmmm:
Why give the Bush twins free access to Air Force one? He's rich. Let him pay for them. Why the wives? I don't see this as a big issue. Hell, it's capped at 1 person... unlike military hops, the Presient's family, friends, advisors, etc.

Would you be upset to find out that the friends of the Bush twins took trips on Air Force One?

What about the DOD waiver already in place? Wouldn't you rather have a fixed policy than allow the judgement of one person or office to be the deciding factor?

Again, seems pretty non-threatening to me.

Ultra Peanut
06-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Please, cite specific example when I've offered any significant "praise" for Republicans? Otherwise, you should really stop embarrasing yourself like this.

My post was more aimed at pointing out hypocrisy of ideological moon bats here, rather than heaping scorn on anyone. Kind of the old, "same stuff different day" and "why should we be surprised by any of this?" sort of statement.....that you zealots find so annoying. But, due to the selective outrage of some, I consider a worthwhile effort.... ;)Wow.




Wow.

bkkcoh
06-14-2007, 12:16 PM
Both house need to be cleaned of the scum in them. People need to start voting out the incumbants in the primaries to send a message to the politicians that we want change.

Cochise
06-14-2007, 12:19 PM
It sure would be nice if just once we got a politician in office who wasn't trying expand their benefits, but rather to contract them. Like voluntarily flying commercial or voluntarily sharing planes with someone else, or voluntarily saying, I'm not going to bring family along at government expense.

"Instead all we see is, I want my own plane, I want a bigger plane, I want to bring more people along, I want carte blanche for an aircraft at any time."

Sure, maybe this kind of thing conforms to the status quo, but why the hell is something a good idea just because it's the way it's always been done?

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 12:49 PM
because the Dems haven't completely solved a problem about which the Republicans did nothing for 6 years, the Dems are to blame???

what kind of partisan douchebag would use such stupid logic?

geez...of course, not one post ever about the still expanding network of corruption between the Republican Party and Jack Abramoff...not isolated individuals, but party wide involvement...

the Republicans, with complete control of the government for 6 years, do nothing and get praise....the Dems do something and receive scorn....so typical, so predictable....

What did she know and when did she know it?

:shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 12:50 PM
Wow.

Wow.

Based on your lack of specific or substantive evidence to justify Gerry's characterization, then I'll take that as "uh, um......well, you sure SEEM to praise Republicans. Even if I can't find any pattern of posting that really demonstrates it. It just seems that way."

Radar Chief
06-14-2007, 12:51 PM
Two things..

1) What is the "protocol needs"?

2) Military families take military hops for free all the time. Not sure what should be different here (for Dems or Reps).

Then let her and her family/friends ride in the unheated/air conditioned cargo bay of a C-135. At least there’d be plenty of room for everyone she wants to bring. :shrug:

jAZ
06-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Based on your lack of specific or substantive evidence to justify Gerry's characterization, then I'll take that as "uh, um......well, you sure SEEM to praise Republicans. Even if I can't find any pattern of posting that really demonstrates it. It just seems that way."
First, "Sure the Talking Can SEEMED he might be talking to/about you. Even if I can't find any specific reference to you that really demonstrates it. It just seems that way."

Second, I actually don't think he was talking about you.

Third, you schtick isn't to "praise Republicans"... it's to attack Democrats, whether they are in power or not... and mostly leave without comment anything that the Republicans in power ever did.

That's not the same as Praise, but it accomplishes much the same end.

Mr. Laz
06-14-2007, 12:56 PM
and the GOP didn't clean it up for last XX years

nobody has been able to clean it up because THEY ALL don't really want it cleaned up.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 01:06 PM
First, "Sure the Talking Can SEEMED he might be talking to/about you. Even if I can't find any specific reference to you that really demonstrates it. It just seems that way."

Second, I actually don't think he was talking about you.

Third, you schtick isn't to "praise Republicans"... it's to attack Democrats, whether they are in power or not... and mostly leave without comment anything that the Republicans in power ever did.

That's not the same as Praise, but it accomplishes much the same end.

I have had negative things to say about Republicans; you just don't remember them. Do I go after Democrats more aggressively? Sure. Part of it is disillusionment/betrayal/cynicism about a party that continues, daily, to marginalize middle class white men.....while pandering to all sorts of pathetic special interest groups, most of whom worship at the alter of government entitlement and victim-hood. Find your sack, Justin. Unless you enjoy wearing that dress.

;)

Cochise
06-14-2007, 01:30 PM
and the GOP didn't clean it up for last XX years

nobody has been able to clean it up because THEY ALL don't really want it cleaned up.

True. No matter how much she swears up and down that she wants to change things and get rid of this pork culture... she can't bear to have to cut down on the traveling staff, or make do with a smaller private jet, or the same one the last speaker had...

noa
06-14-2007, 02:05 PM
True. No matter how much she swears up and down that she wants to change things and get rid of this pork culture... she can't bear to have to cut down on the traveling staff, or make do with a smaller private jet, or the same one the last speaker had...


Man, this myth just won't disappear.

jAZ
06-14-2007, 02:20 PM
I have had negative things to say about Republicans; you just don't remember them. Do I go after Democrats more aggressively? Sure. Part of it is disillusionment/betrayal/cynicism about a party that continues, daily, to marginalize middle class white men.....while pandering to all sorts of pathetic special interest groups, most of whom worship at the alter of government entitlement and victim-hood. Find your sack, Justin. Unless you enjoy wearing that dress.

;)
Your priorities are partisan rather than based in any sort of discernable values. The abuse of power of the last 6 years is un-noteworthy to you. The effort to institutionalize one party rule is no biggie. The deception leading to war... the deaths of 3000 Americans... 100000 Iraqis... non-issue.

I didn't say you never critizied Republicans, but 100-1 doesn't win you anything but faux-sincerity points.

The only thing you've ever really contributed is energitic supposed self loathing on many levels.

go bowe
06-14-2007, 02:22 PM
Hypocrisy is often a mask for selective outrage....for partisan motivation....to demagogue and propagandize the opposition.

Hypocrisy is the hallmark or "pretenders," as opposed to REAL concerned, sincere, and genuine folks who are interested in "honest" government.

I see lots and lots of hypocrits around here....so excuse my skepticism; but I assure you....I don't give a damn about who the messenger is, as long as their credibilty is unassailable.

FTR, you may be prettier than me....but I'm no damn hippy. So there.... :harumph:

:pno you are not any damned hippy, i am the actual hippy refugee around here...

i do note the use and meaning of that word has changed...

in the late 60's and early '70's, a hippy was a flower child/drug user who led an alternative life style...

but the main focus was truly "'sex, drugs, and rock and roll", not necessarily in that order...

nowadays it seems that the word hippy is a pejorative...

it's too bad, really...

if i was single, and 30 - 40 years younger, and unmarried, i would be sitting with a beautiful girl with my tie-dyed t-shirt, letting my hair grow and grow, and looking forward to the next mescaline or lsd trip...

ahh, those were the days...

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 02:43 PM
Your priorities are partisan rather than based in any sort of discernable values. The abuse of power of the last 6 years is un-noteworthy to you. The effort to institutionalize one party rule is no biggie. The deception leading to war... the deaths of 3000 Americans... 100000 Iraqis... non-issue.

I didn't say you never critizied Republicans, but 100-1 doesn't win you anything but faux-sincerity points....As usual, you are simply FOS. My values reside in a prioritization of government roles and responsibilities that have been currently at odds with those of the Democratic leadership (for the past 30 years or so.) What are they? As I've said numerous times: they are low taxes, less federal bureacracy (more state's rights,) and a strong commitment to national defense and security. I simply can't muster the same passion and enthusiasm for social issues and special interest agendas that many in Democratic party seem preoccupied with. It's a deep ideological and philosophical divide, yes. I had hoped Clinton and the DLC would help make the party competitive on those issues I most care about. It was a false hope, as it turned out.

Abuse of power? I don't like it anymore than you do. The problem is, one of us only seems concerned when the Republicans are doing it....whereas I don't like it when either side does it. However, I've come to the realization, like it or not....it's become politics as usual. It's pretty sad, but it is reality.

The "abuses of power" you and some here are constantly harping on are nothing new....to either side of the isle. I'm truly embarrassed by your selective outrage. As someone who's been following politics for over 30 years now....quite closely....I've just come to accept it as a pathetic and sorry part of the system. Until BOTH sides resolve to genuinely change that, all the partisan outrage is at best self-serving and disengenuous (it was from the Republicans during the 90s, but it's coming mostly from Democrats today.)

On the other hand, when facts and evidence are in hand. When accusations and speculation become more than hyperbole and demagoguery....then I'll help lead the lynch mob. Unfortunately, both sides have become very adept walking the fine line between.....the unethical, and the illegal. Today, if it's not illegal; spare me the bravado. Bring me the rope though, when you have a smoking gun.

One-party rule? Like the Dems had during the Carter years....you mean? And LBJ's reign? Yeah, party's become full of themselves when they control it all---but we have elections to cure that, don't we? And usually they do. Deception leading to war? You mean like, what....the sinking of the Maine, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? One man's vetted intelligence, is another man's deception. Yeah, this is the first time something like that has happened, right? :rolleyes:

As a veteran, I assure you the tragic deaths of American soldiers during this war....are not lost on me. I simply understand their service and commitment as members of a voluntary force.....of people who believe in their heart of hearts that "freedom is not free." You may not accept their decision, or the nation's decision to send them into harm's way....but I will defer judgement to those who have served, and placed themselves in that position. Unlike you, I won't second-guess their decision or commitment to their beliefs. I'll leave that to you and those who would disrespect their service by calling their sacrifice "as waste."

go bowe
06-14-2007, 02:48 PM
Based on your lack of specific or substantive evidence to justify Gerry's characterization, then I'll take that as "uh, um......well, you sure SEEM to praise Republicans. Even if I can't find any pattern of posting that really demonstrates it. It just seems that way."well, it seems that way to me too... :p :p :p

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 02:52 PM
well, it seems that way to me too... :p :p :p

It's like being a parent....you are a LOT tougher on your own kids, than you are the children of others. You expect more from them. You want them to rise above it--to meet the challenge.....to STAND UP.

Instead, they keep giving us more of the same. :banghead:

go bowe
06-14-2007, 02:54 PM
Your priorities are partisan rather than based in any sort of discernable values. The abuse of power of the last 6 years is un-noteworthy to you. The effort to institutionalize one party rule is no biggie. The deception leading to war... the deaths of 3000 Americans... 100000 Iraqis... non-issue.

I didn't say you never critizied Republicans, but 100-1 doesn't win you anything but faux-sincerity points.

The only thing you've ever really contributed is energitic supposed self loathing on many levels.ouch...

supposed self loathing?

what do you mean, supposed self loathing?

who's doing the supposing?

anyway, surely you're not talking about our beloved kotter...

it must be a case of mistaken identity or something...

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 02:58 PM
ouch...

supposed self loathing?

what do you mean, supposed self loathing?

who's doing the supposing?

anyway, surely you're not talking about our beloved kotter...

it must be a case of mistaken identity or something...

No kidding. LMAO

If he thinks of me as self-loathing, he doesn't know me AT ALL...do he? Heh. ROFL

go bowe
06-14-2007, 03:00 PM
It's like being a parent....you are a LOT tougher on your own kids, than you are the children of others. You expect more from them. You want them to rise above it--to meet the challenge.....to STAND UP.

Instead, they keep giving us more of the same. :banghead:well, i can see how the national level of the democrat party could offend your sensibilities...

in other news: who would you choose to be president, based on what you know now?

excluding fred...

choose from any of the declared candidates...

here, i'll start...

my favorite is hussein...

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 03:09 PM
well, i can see how the national level of the democrat party could offend your sensibilities...

in other news: who would you choose to be president, based on what you know now?

excluding fred...

choose from any of the declared candidates...

here, i'll start...

my favorite is hussein...

I'm still open to Giuliani and Obama. Maybe Romney, or Richardson. Other than that, I would have a hard time with any of them.

go bowe
06-14-2007, 03:10 PM
No kidding. LMAO

If he thinks of me as self-loathing, he doesn't know me AT ALL...do he? Heh. ROFLnope, he don't know you (in terms of carnal knowledge anyway)...

you're much louder in person...

jAZ
06-14-2007, 03:32 PM
ouch...

supposed self loathing?

what do you mean, supposed self loathing?

who's doing the supposing?

anyway, surely you're not talking about our beloved kotter...

it must be a case of mistaken identity or something...
He's absolutely self loathing... in a variety of ways. The supposed reference applies to his his absolute loathing of his supposed Democratic party.

Stinger
06-14-2007, 03:32 PM
and the GOP didn't clean it up for last XX years

nobody has been able to clean it up because THEY ALL don't really want it cleaned up.

Yep.

Democrats - well the Repubs did it for years and we are trying to fix their mess. But we don't want less than they had!!!!!

Republicans - well we yeah we did some of it but the democrats helped, not too mention we tried to clean up their mess as well!!!

All of this gets old real quick on both parts. I still say the more they bicker and fight and the less time they actually do something is usally a good thing.

And now we return you to the continuing saga of finger pointing by both parties ...



House grinds to a halt in rift over earmarks
Republicans stall Homeland Security spending bill
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, June 14, 2007


(06-14) 04:00 PDT Washington -- For the second straight day, minority House Republicans ground the House to a standstill Wednesday as they drove home their objections to a Democratic plan to deny a floor vote on lawmakers' thousands of pet projects.

Public anger over the surging number of special member projects called earmarks -- derided as pork barrel spending -- was a factor in the Republicans' loss of House control last November, GOP members concede, and now they say they've gotten religion on the need for openness in government.

Charges of hypocrisy flew in floor speeches as House leaders huddled behind closed doors to seek a way out of a dispute that Republicans said showed Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed down on promises of openness and disclosure made when they took power last January.

Democrats had hoped this week to pass four of the 12 annual bills that pay for federal operations beginning Oct. 1. Instead, Republicans have offered 116 amendments to a $37.4 billion Homeland Security spending bill -- the first of the bills on the floor -- in a bid to stall it. And on Tuesday they offered repeated motions to adjourn the House, each requiring a vote, keeping a wary House in session until 2:10 a.m. Wednesday.

Democrats argued Republicans were engaging in partisan attacks to try to embarrass Pelosi. They charged the GOP lawmakers lacked credibility on earmarks, the number of which exploded during their 12 years of House rule.

But Republicans cried foul over a plan by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., for the House to pass all of the dozen spending bills without any earmarks.

Obey said House members from both parties -- even while expressing concern about rising government spending -- had inundated his committee with 33,000 earmark requests. He said it would take the committee's staff four weeks to study all those pork barrel requests and pare them to a manageable level.

Obey proposed to put the earmarks into the bill as the House prepares to confer with the Senate to reconcile the two chambers' different versions of the spending bills. Obey promised to disclose the list of the earmarks a month before such a conference, which Democrats hope to hold by late summer, so members and the public will have time to scrutinize and react to the projects.

But once the House-Senate conferees agree on a final bill, the rules of the House and Senate bar members from amending the legislation to remove individual items. That means, the Republicans charge, that Obey alone will decide on billions of dollars of federal spending affecting projects in practically every House district.

"The Obey policy is indefensible ... Obey's slush fund is indefensible," Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., said as the House debated the Homeland Security spending bill, which provides a 6 percent increase over President Bush's request and would be 13 percent more than was spent last year.

"The new majority ran on a policy of openness, honesty and candor, and I suggest this is a policy that hardly promotes openness, honesty or candor," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

When Democrats took over the House last January, they passed rules saying that members behind all earmarks had to be identified, and that earmarks on all spending bills would be identified "before members are asked to vote on them," as Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., told the House.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an outside watchdog group, said earmarks must be disclosed early in the process.

"Taxpayers have the fundamental right to know about all earmarks. Both congressional and administration projects should be disclosed in legislation before the full House casts a single vote," the group's president, Ryan Alexander, said in a statement.

Obey said that since he became chairman in January when Democrats formally took back House control, his committee has been swamped, in part because Republicans last year failed to complete the appropriations process.

That meant Congress had to spend last January finishing up that work, in which the thousands of earmarks the old Republican Congress had sought were killed for this fiscal year. He also said his work was hampered because Republicans had removed many of the committee's staff before ceding control. And then he had to deal with the long fight with Bush over Iraq war funding.

In 2005, according to the White House budget office, under Republican control of Congress there were 13,492 earmarks in appropriations bills totaling almost $19 billion.

"Our Republican friends are desperately looking for anything to squawk about because they haven't been able to find anything substantive to complain about," Obey said.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., heaped scorn on the Republicans. "What's funny is that many of the Republicans who are fighting for the right to vote against earmarks ... never met an earmark they didn't like," he said.

Even before the Republicans dug in their heels, the House faced a daunting timetable. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he would keep the House in session into Saturday to pass the first four spending bills and send them to the Senate. That timetable is now in tatters.

E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/14/MNGK4QESUB1.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 03:46 PM
He's absolutely self loathing... in a variety of ways. The supposed reference applies to his his absolute loathing of his supposed Democratic party.

You have to be either totally clueless, and less intelligent than even I give your credit for being...for you to sincerely believe that.

It would be absolutely hysterical to anyone who really knows me. LMAO

banyon
06-14-2007, 05:03 PM
I agree with those who say that Pelosi should probably have more time before she can be blamed for this.

I have almost 0% confidence that she will act in any substantive way on this issue and be able to avoid that blame at a later date.

I had no doubts that she would be a terrible Speaker. Sicophantic, toothless, and as uncreative as ever.

jAZ
06-14-2007, 05:08 PM
You have to be either totally clueless, and less intelligent than even I give your credit for being...for you to sincerely believe that.

It would be absolutely hysterical to anyone who really knows me. LMAO
I only know what you demonstrate here. But given your antics here, my comments are quite justified.

I do recognize (as I've said about you in the past) that I'm sure you are behave differently offline and are probably a swell person to know personally.

jAZ
06-14-2007, 05:16 PM
I agree with those who say that Pelosi should probably have more time before she can be blamed for this.

I have almost 0% confidence that she will act in any substantive way on this issue and be able to avoid that blame at a later date.

I had no doubts that she would be a terrible Speaker. Sicophantic, toothless, and as uncreative as ever.
I think a lot of Dems feel exactly as you do, and that's the reason for the low approval ratings of the Congress. That they haven't accomplished all the things that Dems want.

I also agree that it's both an issue of timing... but also an issue of political capital and a lack of a veto-proof majority.

In order for the dems to fix various things that ails the Congress, they have to expend varying degrees of political capital. Those trades come from a limited pool of capital resources.

It actually slows down th process of fixing everything that has been broken in the last 6 years to have so many things to fix at once.

You can either pick a few things and spend all your capital... and then build it back up on the next cycle... or you can apply a little bit of capital to all of the problems and then repeat that again on the next cycle.

Or a mix of the two.

It's not to suggest that there isn't waste in that system (room for improvement).

Plus there is the whole other problem of once a party has that veto-proof type power (whether it's through 60%+ votes or holding the WH too) which is the temptation to put party and power before reform.

But where things stand now, the Dems are doing better than they get credit for.

Taco John
06-14-2007, 05:53 PM
Just out of curiosity Kotter...

You've went for years without so much as starting a single thread about political corruption, and now seem to have made it a big issue for yourself. Where is this shift coming from? Are you serious about this, or are you just being a partisan?

mlyonsd
06-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Term limits.

mlyonsd
06-14-2007, 06:51 PM
But where things stand now, the Dems are doing better than they get credit for.

In nothing less than pure irony, Reid's 19% approval rating and your statment sound much like a Bush supporter.

jAZ
06-14-2007, 07:55 PM
In nothing less than pure irony, Reid's 19% approval rating and your statment sound much like a Bush supporter.
6 months into Bush's 1st term... when (IIRC) the Dems had taken control with the flip of Sanders... And he hadn't yet fixed social security... I wouldn't blame his supporters from holding that opinion.

NewChief
06-14-2007, 08:21 PM
Without diving into the whole thread, I'll make a tangential, partisan point.

I don't see any of the Dems and Libs on this board rushing to this guy's defense. Everyone is pretty much saying, "if he's guilty, hang him up." Most are saying, "Hang him up, regardless of guilt." On the other hand, when a GOP guy does something wrong, it seems that the partisans from that side of the aisle will go tooth and nail down to the end defending the guy and trying to wiggle him out of guilt.

Of course, that's probably one reason the GOP is so much more unified and on message than the DNC. Dems have zero problem turning on their own and tossing one of their number to the masses for sacrifice. The GOP will fight to the bitter end, regardless of how insane and lost the fight might be.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:54 PM
... On the other hand, when a GOP guy does something wrong, it seems that the partisans from that side of the aisle will go tooth and nail down to the end defending the guy and trying to wiggle him out of guilt...

Since many of you libs include me as an honorary member of the GOP....I hope you aren't including me in this assessment. Not only have I criticized assholes like DeLay, I haven't defended any of the crooks from either side of the isle. Has my outrage been concentrated on the Dems? Yup. But as I've said in other threads, you tend to be most strict or hardest on your own....or what I use to consider my own, before I decided to make the break. So FTR, I just wanted to say....I won't defend any of the bastards; even if I'm more eager to assail my own, versus those who have historically been on the other side of the isle from me.

Taco John
06-14-2007, 09:36 PM
Since many of you libs include me as an honorary member of the GOP....I hope you aren't including me in this assessment. Not only have I criticized assholes like DeLay, I haven't defended any of the crooks from either side of the isle. Has my outrage been concentrated on the Dems? Yup. But as I've said in other threads, you tend to be most strict or hardest on your own....or what I use to consider my own, before I decided to make the break. So FTR, I just wanted to say....I won't defend any of the bastards; even if I'm more eager to assail my own, versus those who have historically been on the other side of the isle from me.


ROFL Ahahahahahahahaha!

...he said while sporting an alligator-shoe wearing Hollywood conservative for president avatar.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar571_32.gif

Yeah, you're *REAL* hard on your own! ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2007, 09:39 PM
Since many of you libs include me as an honorary member of the GOP....I hope you aren't including me in this assessment. Not only have I criticized assholes like DeLay, I haven't defended any of the crooks from either side of the isle. Has my outrage been concentrated on the Dems? Yup. But as I've said in other threads, you tend to be most strict or hardest on your own....or what I use to consider my own, before I decided to make the break. So FTR, I just wanted to say....I won't defend any of the bastards; even if I'm more eager to assail my own, versus those who have historically been on the other side of the isle from me.The Dems aren't "your own."

jAZ
06-14-2007, 10:23 PM
Without diving into the whole thread, I'll make a tangential, partisan point.

I don't see any of the Dems and Libs on this board rushing to this guy's defense. Everyone is pretty much saying, "if he's guilty, hang him up." Most are saying, "Hang him up, regardless of guilt." On the other hand, when a GOP guy does something wrong, it seems that the partisans from that side of the aisle will go tooth and nail down to the end defending the guy and trying to wiggle him out of guilt.

Of course, that's probably one reason the GOP is so much more unified and on message than the DNC. Dems have zero problem turning on their own and tossing one of their number to the masses for sacrifice. The GOP will fight to the bitter end, regardless of how insane and lost the fight might be.
It's shameless how zero'ed in the Repulican's on this board have been in endless denials and defenses over the last 6 years. Kotter defends the Repubilcans by responding to overwhelming acts of corruption and dishonesty by spending all of his energy attacking those who are not only NOT acting corruptly... but also actively working to fight the corruption.

Kotter would rather allow endless corruption from the Republican party today... and spend all of his energy attacking Democrats from the 80s. Rather than acting as the true "non-partisan" that he pretends to be, and hold his prefered party (today) accountable for all of their CURRENT, MASSIVE, WIDE-SPREAD, ON-GOING corruption, lies and dishonesty as well as reminding people that it's power that corrupts... not only Republican power.

That Kotter has maintained near absolute silence in the face of MASSIVE corruption for 6 years makes his "I'm just holding 'my party' accountable schtick a complete joke.

And everyone here (but Kotter) knows it.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 10:37 PM
It's shameless how zero'ed in the Repulican's on this board have been in endless denials and defenses over the last 6 years. Kotter defends the Repubilcans by responding to overwhelming acts of corruption and dishonesty by spending all of his energy attacking those who are not only NOT acting corruptly... but also actively working to fight the corruption.

Kotter would rather allow endless corruption from the Republican party today... and spend all of his energy attacking Democrats from the 80s. Rather than acting as the true "non-partisan" that he pretends to be, and hold his prefered party (today) accountable for all of their CURRENT, MASSIVE, WIDE-SPREAD, ON-GOING corruption, lies and dishonesty as well as reminding people that it's power that corrupts... not only Republican power.

That Kotter has maintained near absolute silence in the face of MASSIVE corruption for 6 years makes his "I'm just holding 'my party' accountable schtick a complete joke.

And everyone here (but Kotter) knows it.I don't live in a world, like you....where hyperbole, speculation, and accusations determine my political opinion.

Call me old fashioned, I expect evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and convictions in a court of law....before I get too excited about anything. Most Americans used to subscribe to the notion of "innocent, until PROVEN guilty." I still do. It's sad that you, and many others, don't.
The Dems aren't "your own."
They use to be; but you are right...I've just stubbornly hoped they'd figure things out. They haven't. So, yes, I have left.

ROFL Ahahahahahahahaha!

...he said while sporting an alligator-shoe wearing Hollywood conservative for president avatar.

Yeah, you're *REAL* hard on your own! ROFL

I said "I've made the break"....how much more clear can I be? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 10:46 PM
Just out of curiosity Kotter...

You've went for years without so much as starting a single thread about political corruption, and now seem to have made it a big issue for yourself. Where is this shift coming from? Are you serious about this, or are you just being a partisan?
It's a "big issue" for me---because of the selective outrage and hypocrisy I see on the issue here in D.C., and elsewhere.

Anyone who's been following politics for any real length of time, understands this is not something that is relegated to one party or the other. It's probably one of the most BIPARTISAN aspects of American government.

Until BOTH sides get serious about reform, the same old....same old....will continue to plague BOTH sides of the isle. And, some, will continue to be selective and hypocritical with their outrage.

Taco John
06-14-2007, 11:11 PM
It's a "big issue" for me--


No it isn't. I've done a thread search and until this thread, you've never once been so interested in DC corruption that you've started a thread about it.


Until BOTH sides get serious about reform, the same old....same old....will continue to plague BOTH sides of the isle. And, some, will continue to be selective and hypocritical with their outrage.


You mean people like yourself. This thread only exposes you for the hypocrite fillibusterer that you are.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 06:46 AM
No it isn't. I've done a thread search and until this thread, you've never once been so interested in DC corruption that you've started a thread about it.

You mean people like yourself. This thread only exposes you for the hypocrite fillibusterer that you are.
Perhaps, I should have said I've become interested (once again.)

Why have I become interested once again? Because I see so much ONE-SIDED demagoguery on the issue....that seems to clearly over-look the fact that it has, historically (for a long, long time) been a bipartisan outrage. As a long-standing bipartisan outrage, I had decided unless at least one side was willing to do something about it---complaining about it, is pretty pointless really. Neither side seems interested in serious reform, IMO.

Does that help at all?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 07:06 AM
One thing I don't understand:

How short-sighted the Dems are in regards to a "veto-proof" majority. Honestly, are they that stupid?
Pass all the legislation you want, and allow Bush to veto it. It doesn't really matter if you can't override the veto, because every one will give the Dems more and more political ammo, as they can paint Bush and the Republicans as obstructionists who keep interfering with a political mandate.

They aren't going to be perceived as weak--Bush will be perceived as out of touch...again, and stupid...again.

Radar Chief
06-15-2007, 07:16 AM
Without diving into the whole thread, I'll make a tangential, partisan point.

I don't see any of the Dems and Libs on this board rushing to this guy's defense. Everyone is pretty much saying, "if he's guilty, hang him up." Most are saying, "Hang him up, regardless of guilt." On the other hand, when a GOP guy does something wrong, it seems that the partisans from that side of the aisle will go tooth and nail down to the end defending the guy and trying to wiggle him out of guilt.

Of course, that's probably one reason the GOP is so much more unified and on message than the DNC. Dems have zero problem turning on their own and tossing one of their number to the masses for sacrifice. The GOP will fight to the bitter end, regardless of how insane and lost the fight might be.

Yea, cause, that’s why “Cold Cash” Jefferson wasn’t, like, nominated to committees after bribe money was found in his freezer.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 07:23 AM
One thing I don't understand:

How short-sighted the Dems are in regards to a "veto-proof" majority. Honestly, are they that stupid?
Pass all the legislation you want, and allow Bush to veto it. It doesn't really matter if you can't override the veto, because every one will give the Dems more and more political ammo, as they can paint Bush and the Republicans as obstructionists who keep interfering with a political mandate.

They aren't going to be perceived as weak--Bush will be perceived as out of touch....

EXACTLY right. :clap:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 07:28 AM
EXACTLY right. :clap:

I swear to Allah, the Democratic leadership the last 15 or so years has been filled with the dumbest group of hopeless dipshits I've ever seen. They're like the awkward kid trying to sit at the cool table, who will do anything to be liked; If they'd just be themselves and play politics, they'd wield a hell of a lot more power, but the leadership is so spineless and clueless that they keep elevating guys like Terry McAuliffe to the head of the party when he couldn't even handle Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire"....:shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 08:34 AM
I swear to Allah, the Democratic leadership the last 15 or so years has been filled with the dumbest group of hopeless dipshits I've ever seen. They're like the awkward kid trying to sit at the cool table, who will do anything to be liked; If they'd just be themselves and play politics, they'd wield a hell of a lot more power, but the leadership is so spineless and clueless that they keep elevating guys like Terry McAuliffe to the head of the party when he couldn't even handle Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire"....:shake:

You better watch it.....or jAZ will soon be calling you "self-loathing" too. LMAO

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:28 AM
I swear to Allah, the Democratic leadership the last 15 or so years has been filled with the dumbest group of hopeless dipshits I've ever seen. They're like the awkward kid trying to sit at the cool table, who will do anything to be liked; If they'd just be themselves and play politics, they'd wield a hell of a lot more power, but the leadership is so spineless and clueless that they keep elevating guys like Terry McAuliffe to the head of the party when he couldn't even handle Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire"....:shake:
It sucks, but it's a result of the fact that Limbaugh and Gingrich have for 20 years drilled into people's head that "liberal" is a bad word.

When 2-1 people self identify as conservative, you are forced to the middle. But politics requires drawing strong distinctions between you and your opponent.

It's hard to do when you are running to the middle.

That's not to say that there isn't a need to act with strength, but it's not easy given the conditions.

jAZ
06-15-2007, 10:31 AM
I swear to Allah, the Democratic leadership the last 15 or so years has been filled with the dumbest group of hopeless dipshits I've ever seen. They're like the awkward kid trying to sit at the cool table, who will do anything to be liked; If they'd just be themselves and play politics, they'd wield a hell of a lot more power, but the leadership is so spineless and clueless that they keep elevating guys like Terry McAuliffe to the head of the party when he couldn't even handle Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire"....:shake:
And like him or not, Howard Dean is in fact the kind of person you want. He's the antithisis of TM and one who acts with passion. He deserves a lot of credit.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2007, 11:45 AM
I swear to Allah, the Democratic leadership the last 15 or so years has been filled with the dumbest group of hopeless dipshits I've ever seen. They're like the awkward kid trying to sit at the cool table, who will do anything to be liked; If they'd just be themselves and play politics, they'd wield a hell of a lot more power, but the leadership is so spineless and clueless that they keep elevating guys like Terry McAuliffe to the head of the party when he couldn't even handle Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire"....:shake:

Sounds like both parties have the same virus making the leadership spineless and clueless.

patteeu
06-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Without diving into the whole thread, I'll make a tangential, partisan point.

I don't see any of the Dems and Libs on this board rushing to this guy's defense. Everyone is pretty much saying, "if he's guilty, hang him up." Most are saying, "Hang him up, regardless of guilt." On the other hand, when a GOP guy does something wrong, it seems that the partisans from that side of the aisle will go tooth and nail down to the end defending the guy and trying to wiggle him out of guilt.

Of course, that's probably one reason the GOP is so much more unified and on message than the DNC. Dems have zero problem turning on their own and tossing one of their number to the masses for sacrifice. The GOP will fight to the bitter end, regardless of how insane and lost the fight might be.

Without diving into the whole thread... I don't see... much of anything either. :D

Seriously though, there are plenty of people defending the speaker in this thread. And Kotter was the first to express bipartisan outrage. But Kotter is the one being vilified for his partisanship by the speaker's dem-loving defenders. Go figure. :shrug:

patteeu
06-18-2007, 01:05 PM
It's shameless how zero'ed in the Repulican's on this board have been in endless denials and defenses over the last 6 years. Kotter defends the Repubilcans by responding to overwhelming acts of corruption and dishonesty by spending all of his energy attacking those who are not only NOT acting corruptly... but also actively working to fight the corruption.

Kotter would rather allow endless corruption from the Republican party today... and spend all of his energy attacking Democrats from the 80s. Rather than acting as the true "non-partisan" that he pretends to be, and hold his prefered party (today) accountable for all of their CURRENT, MASSIVE, WIDE-SPREAD, ON-GOING corruption, lies and dishonesty as well as reminding people that it's power that corrupts... not only Republican power.

That Kotter has maintained near absolute silence in the face of MASSIVE corruption for 6 years makes his "I'm just holding 'my party' accountable schtick a complete joke.

And everyone here (but Kotter) knows it.

The difference between you and Kotter is that he consistently says that both parties do it and you pretend that the Republicans are guilty of a "massive corruption" as compared, presumably, to the run of the mill corruption of the dems.

patteeu
06-18-2007, 01:10 PM
No it isn't. I've done a thread search and until this thread, you've never once been so interested in DC corruption that you've started a thread about it.

You conveniently truncated the part of Kotter's quote where he explains why there is a "need" for someone to start a thread like this. He, correctly IMO, points out that there has been a lot of selective outrage and hypocrisy coming from the dem posters on this board while the Republicans held power in the form of corruption thread after corruption thread, but suddenly the threads don't seem nearly as common now that the corruption is coming from the other party. But then, I'm sure that's difficult for you to see given your lack of objectivity.

Taco John
06-18-2007, 11:36 PM
Bah. First of all, don't talk to me about lack of objectivity. That's about as hypocritical as Kottex starting thread to whine about selective outrage.

Secondly, Kottex started this thread for one reason: to be a douchebag. He cares about one thing: making Democrats look bad. That's fine with me, except for the fact that he's such a phoney douche and tries to pretend that he's all about the high road.

I can respect someone who takes the low road and is straight about it. Hell, I'll take the low road if I think it'll get me where I thing I need to go. But it's hard to respect a pretending douche bag who is on the low road and act like they're above it all.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 01:02 AM
Bah. First of all, don't talk to me about lack of objectivity. That's about as hypocritical as Kottex starting thread to whine about selective outrage.

Secondly, Kottex started this thread for one reason: to be a douchebag. He cares about one thing: making Democrats look bad. That's fine with me, except for the fact that he's such a phoney douche and tries to pretend that he's all about the high road.

I can respect someone who takes the low road and is straight about it. Hell, I'll take the low road if I think it'll get me where I thing I need to go. But it's hard to respect a pretending douche bag who is on the low road and act like they're above it all.

May God bless you and keep you. May God make his face to shine upon you and bring you peace, brother Isaac. Godspeed, to you Mr. Hypocrite. I forgive you; and God still loves you.

KC Dan
06-19-2007, 09:06 AM
I especially enjoyed last night's CNN story on earmark reform instituted by Pelosi. I am attaching a portion. Ask your congressman if he or she will provide their request. The whole story is at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/18/earmarks/index.html

From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston

CNN(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.


Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't."As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.
Seven members of the House said they had no earmark requests.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Illinois, released a list of his earmark requests on Monday.

In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks -- those spending requests derided as "pork" that fund everything from road construction and research grants to ski lifts and minor league baseball diamonds. Legislators view these projects as important proof that they are serving their constituents back home.

The 2006 total was 6.2 percent more than 2005's $27.3 billion.
When Democrats regained control of Congress last fall, they promised to create the most honest, open Congress in history.

"We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks," Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, "and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."

Democrats said that Republicans had corrupted the earmark process while they controlled Congress. Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House.

Last week, the issue came to a head as the House got bogged down deliberating the budget for the Department of Homeland Security Department. Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of attempting to bypass debate on questionable earmarks when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, said he would not attach them to legislation until those bills had passed the Senate and House and had been sent to conference committees to work out differences.

Obey said there wasn't time to scrutinize the 32,000 earmark requests and keep the legislation moving. He blamed having to "clean up after" the Republican-controlled Congress for why the requests wouldn't be examined in time.

Chief Faithful
06-19-2007, 10:18 AM
Pelosi campaigned to drain the swamp, but she has only acted as the swamp maiden striving to protect the ecosystem. If corruption was at an all time high with the last Congress then it is still at an all time high with this Congress and nothing Pelosi is doing will change that.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 10:47 AM
My take on this is we have an adversarial system. It unfortunately, requires an opposition party to highlight scandals. It is equally unfortunate, that it's usually projection and just a method of gaining power. It got them in, but they may be booted out soon enough. Public polls show great dissatisfaction with both parties, the WH and congress. Both parties are corrupt. You can't fool everybody all the time.

KC Dan
06-19-2007, 10:56 AM
My take on this is we have an adversarial system. It unfortunately, requires an opposition party to highlight scandals. It is equally unfortunate, that it's usually projection and just a method of gaining power. It got them in, but they may be booted out soon enough. Public polls show great dissatisfaction with both parties, the WH and congress. Both parties are corrupt. You can't fool everybody all the time.
Yes, absolutely true. But, what you can do is go to your district's congressional website and request his/her earmark request and see if you get a response. Since we all pay hard earned tax dollars for their services it stands to reason that they should disclose what THEY want to do with it. If not, then they have something to hide. And when they campaign to provide transparancy and then fight it, they have gone back on their word.
If you haven't already, take a look at who responded with information, who didn't and who is fighting using the link I provided to CNN's site. It is interesting to see some of the responses that they received. Out of 68 NO responses, 41 were from democrats who specifically campaigned on providing earmark transparancy. I have a problem with being lied to whether it is Bush, republicans or democrats.
My congressman is a good guy but will not release his request. That does not bode well for my vote come 2008 and I let him know that via email. It is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:37 AM
Yes, absolutely true. But, what you can do is go to your district's congressional website and request his/her earmark request and see if you get a response. Since we all pay hard earned tax dollars for their services it stands to reason that they should disclose what THEY want to do with it. If not, then they have something to hide. And when they campaign to provide transparancy and then fight it, they have gone back on their word.
If you haven't already, take a look at who responded with information, who didn't and who is fighting using the link I provided to CNN's site. It is interesting to see some of the responses that they received. Out of 68 NO responses, 41 were from democrats who specifically campaigned on providing earmark transparancy. I have a problem with being lied to whether it is Bush, republicans or democrats.
My congressman is a good guy but will not release his request. That does not bode well for my vote come 2008 and I let him know that via email. It is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.
That's encouraging info. Didn't know about that and I will certainly do so. We need the grassroots to put the pressure on. I have been calling mine and I usually get the typical fluff letter. He's a Pub who claims to be a conservative. Yeah right!

Since all the spending over the past 6 years he now publishes a slick, glossy 4 color print brochure bragging about all the money he's brought in locally from the federal govt from the library expansion to the renovation of our little down town. Pork! I'm like wtf? He's bragging about this?