Draining the Swamp

[Shapley]

There is no Foley cover-up. It's as simple as that.

We'll see how much taxpayers money the Democrats can waste on the Haliburton investigation. They may get a token conviction or two, but Haliburton has followed standard practices that have been in place - under both Democratic and Republican adminstrations - as long as there have been wars to profit from. Let's see 'Daddy Warbucks' was a character from what era? The government was paying $1,500 dollars for a toilet seat when?

The issue is the manner in which billing occurs with government contractors. Accounting is a nightmare but there are few companies that can do the work they do, or are willing to, so they have to grin and bear it. Notice that, after the toilet seat 'scandal' broke, the firms adjusted their accounting numbers, but the appropriation remained the same. We paid less for the toilet seats and more for something else.

Sort of like Harry Reid's re-writing of his finance sheets so that all the illegalities suddenly became legal.

The moving finger may have writ, but if your in government, you can call it back to rewrite several words of it.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Jamie - That's how I call it. If you don't vote to send a candidate to office, you are in essence voting 'none of the above', expressing your displeasure or you indifference to the political choices offered. In essence not voting is a vote in itself.

You may not agree, but the evidence is clear that many traditional Republican voters did not vote - They could not support the Democrat and they would not support the Republican, so they stayed home. It's called 'voting with your feet', or something like that.

When the scandals are issues of morality, not legality, the only option is to de-elect the scandalous. If you're a voter, that's really the only option you have anyway, as you can't force charges against them. Voting for the opposition indicates support for the issues they represent. Not voting is the only way of expressing displeasure with your own candidate without showing support for someone else. Can you show me any other way to express it?

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Not voting is the only way of expressing displeasure with your own candidate without showing support for someone else. Can you show me any other way to express it?

V/R
Shapley

Yeah...get the party to put up a decent candidate.

No one should forego voting. I guess that's the difference between you and me, Shap, I will vote for the best person...no matter the party. You are strictly a party-liner. There are excellent people on both sides of the fence and it's a shame that not more voters can see that. Our counrty would be better off if such people were elected. Party-lining only exacerbates the polarization that has stricken our political system.

[jamiebk]

And Shap...while we are on the subject...I recall this quote of yours in response to Great Carouser's reminder to get out and vote last week:

"I hope they do. The stakes are too high for them to sit this one out. The question comes down to one of continued business-friendly policies or higher taxes and impediments to free enterprise.

V/R
Shapley"

Seems to be in conflict with your views stated above....

[Shapley]

No one should forego voting. I guess that's the difference between you and me, Shap, I will vote for the best person...no matter the party. You are strictly a party-liner.

Au contraire! I do not vote the party line. I voted for more than one Democrat in the last election, and have voted for others in the past. In the past election I voted for the man I ran against in '96, and it's not the first vote he's gotten from me.

I did not say that I refrain from voting, nor that I support doing it. Rather that I understand the reasons some may have for doing so. I have refused to vote in races in which neither candidate is worth voting for. There are some candidates I simply cannot support even if his opponent is the lesser man. Are you seriously implying that I should have to put an 'x' next to one of the marks just because there is a race? Given the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, I'll choose not to choose as often as not. If I know either result will be unsatisfactory, why should I put my stamp of approval on one of them?

I did say over in the "America gets an 'F'" thread that I don't think the uninformed should vote. I didn't say we should prevent them from voting, but rather that I would prefer that they stay home if they're not going to educate themselves on the issues. I want politicians to be elected on the issues, not because they paid the most for votes. I've seen enough corrupt politicians elected to office because they spread around enough campaign cash to know that it's a bad system. If they'll cheat to get into office do you really think they'll act ethically once they're in? I hardly think so.

[OperaTenor]

Shap, are you seriously trying to compare Harry Reid's, et al, actions with those of Duke Cunningham and the K street gang?

How much did Cunningscam receive through his bribing and corruption? How many soldiers possibly have died as a result of his crookery?

As for Foley, you can deny it til the cows come home, but there most certainly was a coverup. Denny sat on incriminating information, which should have at least gotten Foley removed from his post on the caucus, for almost a year, and the Pubs in charge kept the Dems out of the loop.

[Shapley]

Yeah...get the party to put up a decent candidate.

I can't make the party do that, even when I was a part of the party committee I didn't have that power. I can nominate candidates. I can vote in the primary (but only in one party's primary per election cycle). In the end, the candidate will select someone to run, and I have to to decide either to support them or not. If I decide not to support them, then I have to decide either to vote for the opponent or not. If not, then I have to decide to either vote for the third-party candidate (if there is one), or not vote. Those are my choices, and which one I choose at any given time depends on a lot of variables. I rarely choose not to vote, but I have, at least in individual races, made that choice before.

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

Once I get over my distrust of the electronic voting machines (that will be when they print both me and the registrar of voters an eye-readable receipt which allows me to confirm my vote was correctly entered, prior to registering it), there is a beautiful use for them.

They will allow us to implement testing. Each item on the ballot will be preceded by a test question. A fairly basic question, but one designed to determine if the voter is at least minimally familiar with the issue. If that question is answered correctly, the votor may procede to vote on the issue. If the answer is incorrect, the vote will be disallowed.
This idea requires refinement to function properly.
For example: Prop C proposes
a) to allow sick people to grow and smoke maryjane, if a doctor prescribes it
b) to allow central maryjane stores to sell to people who have a prescription
c) to paint school buses neon-pink
d) Doctors to grow maryjane as an office plant, to give to sick patients
e) Eliminate school crossing zones.

[Shapley]

Shap, are you seriously trying to compare Harry Reid's, et al, actions with those of Duke Cunningham and the K street gang?

Yes. They are very similar. But, Cunningham is out of Congress, Reid is still there.

Reid called this the 'most corrupt Congress in history', and he should know, much of the corruption is his. His money laundering schemes mirror those that landed war hero Cunningham in the pokey, but Reid denies all wrongdoing.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Seems poor Mr. Murtha claims he is being "Swift Boated" by those nasty Democrats. So much for the new era of civility. It's been, what, a week since the election?

I guess, since I've posted information about Murtha's past, does that make me a tool of the Democrat Slander Machine?

[OperaTenor]

You want to show me where Reid has been accepting bribes from defense contractors?! To the tune of $2.5 million?!

Good grief.

[Shapley]

No, not from defense contractors. He's not on that committee. You seem to draw some sort of conclusion that some bribes are worse than others, and I don't.

Reid was doing the same thing Cunningham was - accepting money and then funnelling government spending towards the source of that money. The difference is Cunninghaw was caught, prosecuted, and dismissed, Reid is still there. How do you see this as being evidence that Republicans are hiding the corruption. The President could have pardoned him, as other Presidents have done to their political buddies, and the case would have been closed, but it was allowed to go through the legal process. Cover-ups are supposed to be made of firmer stuff.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

OT,

As I pointed out with Foley.

He didn't do anything other that talk. Period. And he had the good grace to resign

Simply said, Congressional Democrats response to scandals haven't always been quite as swift or quite as decisive as Republicans. When Republicans are caught they almost always are expected by other Republicans to resign. When Democrats are caught the only expectation by other Democrats is they get their fair share.

In the Foley case those Democrats who wrapped themselves in moral indignation for political gain five weeks before a national election should have been reminded frequently and publicly of how they responded in 1983.

.Remember Gerry Studds? Probably not, Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page. In 1983, he was reprimanded.

Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation; apparently because they did not find Studds' conduct to be deserving of a full censure, which carries significant penalties.

Those Dems include House Min. Whip Steny Hoyer, who was on full display as a flaming hypocrite when he said

"(this) suggests that protecting Mr. Foley’s political career was a higher priority for Republicans than protecting pages."

As Shapely has commented and I believe, Democrats, both the electorate and elected have a lower set of expectations for themselves. Was Cunningham’s behavior egregious and illegal? Absolutely, and he was prosecuted and received the harshest sentence ever giving to a member of congress. You probably never heard of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D) until I mentioned him. Many think he was easily as guilty as Cunningham in his real estate dealings and allegations that he used his influence to shift millions of taxpayer dollars to friends and relatives.

How about Jefferson? He had to be stripped of his position in the House because he refused to step aside and he ran again while under indictment. At least Cunningham had the good grace to resign and said

"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir,"

Wanna bet a bottle of scotch you’ll never hear words like that from Jefferson?

Also in '83, Republican Dan Crane's relationship with a female page, also 17, was exposed. He was defeated in '84 by an indignant electorate; Studds was repeatedly re-elected by his electorate and served his district until 1996. Jefferson faces a runoff vote.

What does that tell you about the attitude and expectations of Republican and Democrat electorates?

[Shapley]

Haggis,

As I said earlier - Democrats send their representatives to Washington to steal money from other districts and return it to them in the form of government programs. It's hard to get incensed at them for stealing if that's what you sent them to do.

Republicans have a different view of what government is supposed to do - at least the Republican electorate does.

We get upset if our candidates don't live up to the standards we've set, Democrats understand when their candidates live down to theirs.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

Re the Foley matter:
I notice a lack of input from the page & aide community, aside from that one appearance on Fox.

Methinks the Congress doth protest just enough to look good.

[piqaboo]

We get upset if our candidates don't live up to the standards we've set, Democrats understand when their candidates live down to theirs

And thus ends all possibility of discussion or debate on the relative merits of candidates for any elected office.

[barfle]

We get upset if our candidates don't live up to the standards we've set, Democrats understand when their candidates live down to theirs.

Since I'm upset with both sides, what does that make me? I know, a rationalist.

[Haggis@wk]

WaPo

” It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.”

[snigger] and they haven’t even taken over yet [/snigger] Honestly, I can see now how much fun OT had poking fun when the Republicans were calling the shots.

Of course this decision might be based on the noble thought that draining the swamp might be environmentally unfriendly. All they need to do is to get some really good waders.

To be fair, I never was much impressed with the recommendations. They seemed more concerned with putting a dress on a pig rather than replacing the pig.

But it is funny to see the Democrats sloughing off promises before they’ve even taken over

[Shapley]

What! Democrats are about to renig on a promise????

If I had had any faith in them, it might have been shaken.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

We get upset if our candidates don't live up to the standards we've set, Democrats understand when their candidates live down to theirs.

Since I'm upset with both sides, what does that make me? I know, a rationalist.

I'd've said sane. Or possibly impartial, depending on what mood I was in.

I don't figure it's Democrats, or Republicans, so much as it is Politicians that annoy me with the sleaze, slander, lying, doubledealing...

Nevermind. Just a