| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41473 Activity:low |
1/21 It's a GOP scandal, even the National Review admits:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp
\_ I'd be perfectly happy if all the corrupt garbage from both
parties got banned from public office and lobbying forever.
Most of Congress wouldn't be there and we could get a fresh
start. Anyone there for more than 1 or 2 terms is dirty but
due to the way the two party system is designed and controls
election districts and voters being morons, nothing will change.
Who said the line about democracy being great until the people
figure out they can vote themselves goodies? That's where we
are now and this Abramoff thing is just the tip. I am shocked
not that this is going on but that anyone is actually taking it
seriously. Where do you all think a ton of ex-politicians and
ex-staffers go when they're not in power? They become rich
lobbyists. What do you think lobbyists do? They "buy influence"
which is also known as "bribing politicians". Is anyone else
here honestly surprised this is going on? Does anyone here
honestly believe Abramoff is the only one bribing politicians
or that only one party is guilty of taking bribes? This is how
Washington is run. Every few years someone gets busted, they
make a few new ethics rules for everyone to ignore and a few
people return a tiny bit of their dirty money and life goes on.
This is all bullshit and going nowhere. Nothing is going to
change, just the names.
\_ I don't think anyone is genuinely surprised. This may turn out
to be a way to tone down the usual corruption, or it may just
be a hiccup in the status quo. Either way, it's not enough to
simply recognize that this is the was it's been and then shrug
our shoulders and live with it. Opportunities like this are a
way for the few clean people to finally shake out the rug. Please
don't let your politics-weary cynicism blind you to the few
chances we have to make it right, or it will never get there.
\_ Too late. This turned into a political point score fest
on day one. Maybe the *next* corruption scandal will be
different.
\_ "political point score fest" and cleaning up corruption are
not mutually exclusive.
\_ and the Washington Post peevishly agrees: http://csua.org/u/eqc
\_ The article fails at the end with its argument where it argues
politicians shouldn't justify bribes because they make less
money compared to their private counterparts. If government
wants politicians to not take bribes, then government really
needs to compensate them adequately.
\_ Cops get paid much less than politicians, but there are still
very very honest and hardworking cops. I used to work out at
a place that was mostly cops, and I was very impressed by the
work ethic and sense of duty and porfessionalism some of these
people have. They really don't get paid all that much, and unlike
politicians, they put their lives on the line every day, yet
somehow our society comes up with some decent hardworking, honest
ones who aren't on the take. Why is it that cops can do this, but
politicians can't? Maybe it's because people like you have
decided it's ok.
\_ I couldn't help but rape that woman your honor! Look what
the slut was wearing!
\_ If you can't argue with the statement that it's a Republican
scandal, attack the article on some other grounds. It's an
opinion piece. TNR articles are. The point of the motd post is
that even a conservative editorial admits the fact that
Abramgate is a Republican scandal.
\_ Ignoring that your post is a red herring, our argument puts the
horse (or rather, horses' asses) before the cart. If people
want to become politicians, they should learn to accept that
their rank and power more than make up for a lack of monetary
recompense. If they can't live up to the perhaps superhuman
responsibility of living by a strict code of ethics, they
should quit. Really, it's not as if they're not getting paid
more than enough to live on already. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats. The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection. Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington. Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake. The first step was the permanent ouster of Tom DeLay as House Republican majority leader, a recognition that he is unfit to lead as long as he is underneath the Abramoff cloud. The behavior of the right in this matter contrasts sharply with the left's lickspittle loyalty to Bill Clinton, whose maintenance in power many liberals put above any of their principles. Next, Republicans will have to show they can again embrace the spirit of reform that swept them to power in 1994. To this end, GOP lawmakers are rushing to introduce lobbying reform. But lobbying reform's animating pretense is that lawmakers are all upstanding -- until they come under the corruptive spell of lobbyists. In every transaction, however, there has to be a willing buyer and seller. There are two deeply rooted sources of corruption in Washington. One is that many members of Congress believe that they would be making much more than their $160,000-a-year salaries if they were in some other line of work. This sense is compounded when they watch their former 30-year-old aides go to work on K Street for $300,000 a year. This is how someone like Tom DeLay -- otherwise a conviction politician -- justifies playing the best golf courses in the world on someone else's dime and getting special interests to funnel easy money to his wife. It will be a sign that Congress has learned something if it bans all privately funded travel. If a trip is truly educational and necessary, the public should fund it; if, on the other hand, a member of Congress wants to enjoy fine resorts, he should quit, practice law (or whatever), and earn the income to support his desired lifestyle. The other problem is that Washington makes obscure decisions that enrich small groups of people. Most everyone in Washington supports making these decisions because it increases his or her power. But if Congress really wants to lessen the malign influence of lobbyists, it should reform the inherently corruptible process whereby the Interior Department recognizes new Native American tribes so they can mint money by opening casinos, and end the practice of "earmarking" federal dollars for local and special-interest projects. It's no accident that Abramoff saw the business potential in both of these processes. Of course, making these sort of changes would be painful. That's why it is tempting for Republicans to look for a John McCain instead. |
| csua.org/u/eqc -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100907.html The Firestorm Over My Column By Deborah Howell Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page B06 Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down. That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas. She was a reporter at the Austin American-Statesman, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the Minneapolis Star. She became the city editor at the Star and then the managing editor and editor of the St. She was the Washington Bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News from 1990 until 2005. Howell joined The Washington Post in October 2005 as an ombudsman. In that capacity, she promotes public understanding of the newspaper and journalism. I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms. But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts. So why would it cause me to be called a "right-wing whore" and much worse? Witness three printable examples: "Yes, the WAPO needs an enema, and Howell should be the first thing that gets medicinally removed." "You Deborah Howell, stop lying about Democrats getting money from Abramoff. Democrats do not control anything in Washington, so why would he waste money bribing them. "This rag must be something that I pulled off a barscreen at a sewage treatment plant. How this creature endures itself is something I don't understand. There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers' right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains. You can find my biography and much of what I stand for on the Internet. You can ask anyone who worked with me in Minnesota and at Newhouse News Service what kind of journalist I am. I have spent my life working for rational reporting and passionate and reasonable opinion. So is it the relative anonymity of the Internet that emboldens e-mailers to conduct a public stoning? Is this the increasing political polarization of our country? What I do know is that I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings. But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy. com to shut down an area reserved for comments about me, as it did on Thursday night. And I know the decision is being greeted with great disdain. Jim Brady, editor of the Web site, said that when the site was set up, "there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. Mark Kelch's first e-mail said: "I'm sure you are making your conservative handlers happy but journalistically it makes you look like a fool. Kelch answered: "I took some time and read an interview (online) with you, among other things. When I finished, I shuddered a little bit because it made me think I may be exhibiting an attribute that in others I despise. My e-mail to you was a cheap shot at your integrity and for that I am sorry. I sincerely hope part two of your article knocks them dead." I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind. |