0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:46 pm
Thomas Sowell, or maybe it was Walter Williams, recently commented that our elected representatives should earn a minimum of $1 million per year in salaries. It was not because he felt our elected representatives did work meriting this kind of income. It was because he wanted better people to run for office.

I have not particularly been a fan of Richard Reeves who I think doesn't always do meaty research for his essays. But the following one was too much on target not to share it:

January 7, 2006
Why Abramoff? Why Politicians Steal
By Richard Reeves

JERSEY CITY, N.J. -- There were politics in my home growing up here. My father was a poor Republican lawyer in an almost totally Democratic world. In those days -- I was 10 years old -- I thought America was an Italian country governed by the Irish. They were all Democrats. We were the only white Protestant Republicans.

There came a day when my brother and I, lying on the floor of our bedroom, the only one in our little apartment, listened to the men in hats who had come to talk to my father about running for the City Commission on a "fusion" ticket of four Democrats and a Republican. Our father was being offered the chance to be a big shot.

He said, "No."

I was devastated. I asked my dad why he did that. "Whoever takes that spot," he said, "will end up in prison." That happened. Another Republican, a good friend of my father's, took the job and did end up behind bars.

Those were the days when politicians saw graft as their due, the same as in Third World countries or some counties in West Virginia. They hobnobbed with gamblers and other bad guys, and they generally made a pretty good living for their families for a time -- and for criminal attorneys after that. Then, over the years, the methods of corruption changed even if the instincts toward it did not.

There are more laws than there used to be, and the movement of money is more complicated than fat envelopes and briefcases. But one thing never changes: In a society where money equals power and vice versa, elected politicians and high government bureaucrats receive relatively little money in comparison to the power they have, which makes many of them easy marks for the devil's hands. Opportunity and temptation are always there when a salary man has the power to make a big boss or investor rich, or even richer, by changing a comma or a number in a law or a contract involving public works.

So, sometimes there is cash under the table, sometimes campaign contributions, sometimes deferred compensation in the form of jobs, lectures, consultancies or books coming to officials after their retirement. High military position can be as good as elected office in the post-service lucrative years.

We have developed a system bound to corrupt the resentful who see themselves handling the society's toughest work. At lower levels, policemen and minor civil servants with enormous power and small paychecks live in temptation, surrounded by dirty money.

Among politicians, I have watched more than a few friends and acquaintances go off to prison. There are no hard and fast rules for corruption, but I have noticed that many Republicans go wrong because they believe that it is business as usual, un-American to pass up a chance at profit. They do what comes naturally in the private sector, but some of what comes naturally to a speculator is against the law for a public servant.

Democrats I've known have gone wrong because they came to believe they had earned their way into a privileged class, complete with free meals and vacations, life on the fast track. Then comes a day, often when they are first faced with college tuitions for their children, that they realize they can't afford the life of the people asking, begging them for little favors. They step onto the slippery slope of favors and loans and then bribes.

Such stories come and go. The public forgets until the next time.

But the case of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist stealing money from Indian casinos and other pots of government-subsidized cash and spreading it as campaign contributions to the compliant and weak in high office, may be a next time to be remembered. This scandal seems to have it all -- greed, comedy, a guy who thought like the Godfather and dozens if not hundreds of public officials -- and we may soon find ourselves asking how our government really functions in a time of easy money and easy excuses. With luck, we'll be made better by the lessons of the revelations -- at least until the next time.

Copyright 2005 Universal Press Syndicate
LINK
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:11 pm
Blathom doesn't know what he is talking about- As usual.

He quotes an Ipsos site concerning the November election and Just Wonders most correctly points out that there were many more Democrats polled than Republicans. Since Blotham does not read, he didn't get the facts Just Wonders did and if he did he is guilty of malicious distortion.

He may not read any of my posts. He does not respond to them. I am certain that he is afraid that if he engages me one on one, I will give him a good drubbing.

But this is not the time for drubbings. This is the time to educate Blotham and others.

I have posted this several times. I think the information in it is so important and vital in assessing the election in November that people like Blotham dare not try to rebut it. Very well, I will post it and it will stand UNREBUTTED. That means it is true.

Morton Kondracke wrote a commentary in the Chicago Sun Times on Nov. 5, 2005. The column states:

"Fairvote, a group which advocates handling redistricting through non partisan commissions rather than elected politicians found that HISTORICAL PATTERNS OF CONGRESSIONAL LOSSES NO LONGER APPLY, ACCORDING TO FAIR VOTE BECAUSE DISTRICTS ARE SO GERRYMANDERED THAT ONLY 30 OR SO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OUT OF 435 ARE COMPETETIVE."

(Since Blotham seems to have trouble understanding big words, I will translate--There ain't no way that there will be any fights in more than 30 Congressional Districts that can go either way)

Why has this taken place?

quote

"The two parties, otherwise bitterly polarized, conspired after the 2000 census TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS BY PACKING REPUBLICAN VOTERS INTO REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS AND DEMOCRATIC VOTERS INTO DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS, SO THAT


ONLY 59

seats are held by members of a different party from the one that carried his or her district in the 2004 presidential election. IN 2000, There were 86 such districts and in 2004, more than 100 split districts>"


Blotham apparently does not realize this. Anyone who wishes to really find out what's going on with regard to November's election is invited to go to the COOK Reports--The best site for matters like this.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:21 pm
Foxfyre-- Who said---"We like your president" and gave $300,000 to his re-election campaign?

Who pressed for the MFN status for China?

In what year did both of these events take place?

answers--

l. According to Johnny Chung( as honest as Abramoff I am sure) the head of Chinese military intelligence, General Ji Shengde, gave him the money to give to the Clinton Re-election campaign.

2. Why, Bill Clinton, of course. He signed the bill.

3. In 1996



IS THERE AN APPEARANCE OF A QUID PRO QUO?


No, because the slickmeister, Bill Clinton, subsequently said--"I don't think it can be shown that I changed legislation JUST BECAUSE OF A CAMPAIGN DONATION.

You see, Foxfyre--no quid pro quo.


Extra credit--

Who sold the Lincoln Bedroom to at least 100 people at $100,000 a shot?

BIll Clinton.

Was there a quid pro quo? Of course not!!

Who were the top contributors to the 1992 Clinton campaign?

Chinese agents.

Who were the leading Clinton donors in 1996?

US defense contractors doing business with Chinese missle manufacturers.

Was there a quid pro quo?

Of course not.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 04:58 am
Bush doesn't have any bal*s as he avoided Vietnam. Bush supporters should be called panties.


http://www.cagle.com/working/060106/matson.gif
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:16 am
Maybe the problem is the cost of running an election campaign in America.

Even congressmen, I have heard, (let alone presidential candidates) have to "earn" or attract millions while in office, or before first attaining office, so as to be able to run an election campaign which stands a chance of success.
I have read that this can cost over forty million dollars.

The only way most candidates have of gathering this size of war chest is to take bribes, from whoever will pay them.

Is this a healthy state of affairs? I don't think it is.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 06:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
There is a vast difference between a lobbyist who may or may not be Republican lobbying Republicans and a person who is lobbying on behalf of the Republican party. The media gives the impression that the latter is the case. It isn't.


Jesus. Your ability to deny anything you aren't comfortable hearing or thinking about reaches levels I've never encountered before.

Jack Abramoff:

- Bush Pioneer
- College Republican National Committee (CRNC) National Chairman from 1981-85
- one of Tom DeLay's "closest and dearest friends"
- Director of the National Center for Policy Research
- financial support overwhelmingly to Republican politicians
- joined the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, whose website described him as "directly involved in the Republican party and political conservative movement leadership structures and is one of the leading fund raisers for the party and its congressional candidates."
link
- And then there is the identity of the people involved. For 25 years Abramoff has been a key figure in the conservative movement that led to the 1994 Republican Revolution, which once promised "to drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C. Abramoff is mentor and close friend to the prominent activist Grover Norquist, and to Ralph Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition, highly successful political operative, and self-advertised adviser to the Bush White House. Both Reed and Norquist, in fact, lead organizations that were recipients of the tribes' generosity, through Abramoff's intercession. (the Weekly Standard)

And a HELL of a lot more, not least being the K Street Project.


And, considering that 40% of his efforts were devoted to Democrats in the last several years, your expounding relates to this scandal, how? And how is it honest to repeatedly refer to Republicans and say that 40% of the contributions going to Democrats is irrelevent? Take your time. I'll wait.


Well, fine. Write here whatever sentences you surmise might sound good. But get yourself prepared.
Quote:
"I think as this thing unfolds, it'll be so disgusting, and the Republicans will be under such pressure from their base, that they will have to undertake substantial reform," said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker (who himself had to pay $300,000 to settle a 1997 ethics case). "This is like Watergate."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/weekinreview/08purdum.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 06:44 am
McTag said:
Quote:
Maybe the problem is the cost of running an election campaign in America.


It is surely a significant part of the problem. And in that aspect, not a Republican failing, it is systemic. One of the measures I have for telling the good guys from the bad guys is resistance to electoral reform.

Which brings up the quite unexpected scenario, one I had previously totally discounted, of John McCain gaining the nomination in 2008. Events of the last year (and the intelligence of his strategy to get there) have altered the landscape. I both do and don't wish this consequence. If he gets it, he'll be formidable and I don't like much of his platform. On the other hand, he's a principled guy and that might be the aspect of a new leader most needed right now.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:17 am
Blatham
Blatham, before campaign finance reform has a possibility of being enacted, we have to identify those who either are against it or have a conflict of interest with the issue.

I think we know generally whose financial interests would be negatively impacted, but no one seems to look at the huge conflict of interest the Media has.

Who makes the most money from political campaigns? Political consultants, of course, but a huge amount of money goes to campaign advertising. TV, radio, the print press, magazines, etc. all benefit from high campaign advertising costs. Should the Fairness Doctrine be restored to reduce campaign costs and give others than the two main parties a chance.

Do we ever see the Media really get behind taxpayer paid public financing of campaigns? Other than lip service, I don't recall anything significant. While I cringe at one cent of my taxes going to candidates whom I oppose, I would grit my teeth and trade off the money corruption that is destroying our democracy for that small insult.

The other thing that I would require would be for the lobbying industry to clean up it's own house. There is no reason why they should not institute oversight similar to the American Medical Association, The American Bar Association, the Contractor Licensing Boards, etc. to monitor and punish their members who violate laws and ethical standards.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:40 am
Looking back over the years when Newt Gingrich was in a position of considerable power, in the eyes of those on the left he could do nothing right. He was evil, corrupt, a bully, an opportunist, a philanderer, a hypocrite, and would-be-king intent on destroying democracy as we know it.

Now he has said something that could be presumed to be critical of Republicans and he is the new poster boy of wisdom and morality for the Left.

My God, in the face of such strength of conviction and principle demonstrated by the Left, how will we on the Right ever hope to win another election? We might as well just pull all conservatives from the ballot and concede the reins of power to these paragons of virtue and morality.

The implications are simply astounding, and I suppose I should be used to it by now, but I still shake my head in amazement.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:48 pm
Goodness gracious; an opportunity to agree with McT and Blatham in the same post. Shocked

McTag wrote:
Maybe the problem is the cost of running an election campaign in America.
I would agree with this if you deleted the word "Maybe".

McTag wrote:
Even congressmen, I have heard, (let alone presidential candidates) have to "earn" or attract millions while in office, or before first attaining office, so as to be able to run an election campaign which stands a chance of success.
I have read that this can cost over forty million dollars.
The figure that's been stuck in my head is "an average of $10,000 per week to get or keep a representative office. I don't recall where I got it (Ross Perot?).

McTag wrote:
The only way most candidates have of gathering this size of war chest is to take bribes, from whoever will pay them.

Is this a healthy state of affairs? I don't think it is.
No, it is not. I think it is high time to make it illegal for any candidacy or special interest group of any kind to purchase advertising space of any kind, thereby eliminating the motive or usefulness of an absurdly overstuffed warchest.

Stump speeches, public debates, and a website accessible to all Americans where each candidate can make and define his case for being in office would deliver a better set of choices. The amount of space for each candidate (not just the top two) should be identical and arranged by the number of hits it receives. Same goes for special interest groups voicing their opinion. I believe a fair set of ground rules could be created (hell, Craven could probably build it), establishing a level playing field for all candidates and special interests... not just the richest of the field. Those found in violation of the reform laws should be charged with felony tampering of an election and treated accordingly.

I've known some pretty amazing people in my life that could never acquire office under the current, corrupt system... and I'd wager none of them would want to work within it anyway.

Blatham; I like and agree with your McCain observation. Wouldn't it be interesting if the man most likely to reach the voters on both sides of the aisle were actually chosen to do so? I don't agree with all of his positions by any stretch of the imagination, but have little doubt I'd vote for him over any other phony propped up by the politics as usual corruption. If government is compromise, than who better to bridge the gap?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:54 pm
From an Opinion in tomorrow's (Monday, December 9) Australian, page 9



Quote:
TIMELY DEPARTURE
A powerful US politician lowers the scandal stakes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 03:07 pm
The republicans are not going to ask the tough questions or take any action to destroy their own party. It only shows that ethics in government is an oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:13 pm
talk72000 wrote:
Bush doesn't have any bal*s as he avoided Vietnam. Bush supporters should be called panties.


http://www.cagle.com/working/060106/matson.gif


Why should Bush supporters be called "panties"?

I support Bush,and I spent 20+ years in the military.I served in Beirut,Grenada,Desert Storm,Somalia,Afghanistan,and Iraq.
I was wounded in Iraq,and am medically retired.
Am I a "panty"?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:16 pm
mysterman,

Thank you for your service! God Bless You! God Bless Our Troops!
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:39 pm
Yes MM, we know you are a war hero. However, most of the bush backers have no clue what war service is. I doubt that over 5 of those on this site who back bush are actually war wounded. I'll bet that MOST of his ardent backers here haven't even served in the military. By the way, aren't you medically retired because of something OTHER than war injuries ... I seem to remember a heart attack, stroke, or back injury. Nothing to do with the military ... right or wrong??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:43 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Yes MM, we know you are a war hero. However, most of the bush backers have no clue what war service is. I doubt that over 5 of those on this site who back bush are actually war wounded. I'll bet that MOST of his ardent backers here haven't even served in the military. By the way, aren't you medically retired because of something OTHER than war injuries ... I seem to remember a heart attack, stroke, or back injury. Nothing to do with the military ... right or wrong??

Anon

Anon,

What does that matter? What matters is He served his country. He fought for us! He deserves our thanks and respect for that.

I'm sorry you don't seem to see that Crying or Very sad .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:45 pm
mother angel, so did anon, would be kind of you to thank him as well.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:46 pm
In any organization, people complain about a strong leader. The complaints usually center on the inconsistencies in his/her behavior and emphasis, the high cost to the work evvironment that result from the demands he places on the organization, and the risks he is taking. In general those complaining fail to consider the typical set of problems attending the alternatives, particularly those attending a "consensus leader" who seeks the favor and approval of those he is charged to lead, and who avoids direct action to change or improve the situation of the organization. However, in the long run the "consensus leader" usually seriously undermines the strength, cohesion, and security of the organization in serious ways. Oddly these outcomes aren't usually blamed on the weak leader who has in very serious ways failed those whose welfare he is responsible to protect.

I believe these considerations apply to a large degree in the relations between the United States and our "allies", and also, to a lesser degree in our domestic p[olitics.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 05:47 pm
dyslexia wrote:
mother angel, so did anon, would be kind of you to thank him as well.

dyslexia,

You bet I would! I did not know that and I am glad you told me. Also, if I have never thanked you for your service, dyslexia, I do. Thank you. God Bless You!

Anon,

Thank you for your service! God Bless you! God Bless Our Troops!
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 06:32 pm
I have never claimed to be a "war hero" as anon claims.
I was simply a soldier doing my job.
I am no different then other soldiers,and certainly no hero,at least not in the usual meaning of the word.

Anon,I was retired after losing part of my right hand in Nassiriyah.
I did have back surgery,but that had nothing to do with my military career.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 02:59:46