Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jan 10, 2006.
A good article, but the key is that, that someone should NOT be John McCain, as he's a major part of the problem.
What do you think that article was saying?
It was pointing out the ease with which corruption invades Wash. DC, how the Republicans will clean their own house, the Democrats will not, how Delay perceives himself as underpaid, thus allows cushy job for wife to , "make ends meet".
The inference to J. McCain was of course in the context that he, or someone like him would reform lobbying, the uglyness of which is being brought out by the Abramoff debacle.
I simply meant that McCain should not be that knight in shining armor riding in to reform lobbying, as he did campaign finance reform, which of course was/is unconstitutional.
Whenever I hear reform or bipartisan I look for the coming whitewash investigation.
The point about John McCain at the beginning of the column was that the Democrats made sure he was officially a part of the "Keating Five" so that there would not simply be a "Keating Four" of four Democrats. So the article is saying that the Republicans are trying to include Democrats in the Abramoff scandal to try to keep all of the attention from being on the Republicans who are involved.
McCain is a RINO.
You've got Zell Miller; we have John McCain. I think we democrats come out on the winning side of this trade.
It's topics like this that make me thankful that I'm not a partisan type of guy. I'm really surprised at how many people use partisan affiliation as a litmus test of character. Or perhaps I should not be surprised at all.
It's one of the reason why, though I highly encourage all people to vote, I generally do not disclose whom I voted for. Too many people willing to be pharisaical judges over it.
McCain has had one stab at campaign finance reform and all he did was make it worse.
The way it works in Washington, that should qualify him as an expert in the field
We seem to have read an entirely different article than hillclimber.
Anyone who thinks Dems are less corrupt that Republicans is out of their mind.
The only solution that will work is to decentralize the money and power that has been brought into Washington. You can't be simultaneously realistic about human character and believe that centralizing that amount of power will not directly result in corruption no matter which party is in charge.
In 94, the GOP started out with some good ideas... they have gotten off track and will probably pay for it... as will we all when the Dems get back in charge.
Well, they have less power, so if you ascribe to the theory that power corrupts, it's possible that they have had less opportunity to fully realize their potential for corruption, don't you think?
One of Delay's strengths is his organizational abilities. One of the things he did was to consolidate power by insisting that the top lobbyists and firms doing business with the government hire Republicans.
But how? Through legislation?
I believe you're correct.
The parties might just flip agendas. It's hard to say what's going to happen other than that the enormous federal debt is going to affect us all, primarily by reducing discretionary social spending. That was part of the goal of '94, wasn't it?
"Well, they have less power, so if you ascribe to the theory that power corrupts, it's possible that they have had less opportunity to fully realize their potential for corruption, don't you think?"--------------------------------
Nah, they pretty much got their quota in and then some with Clinton.
I wish you'd drag McCain across the aisle. I think you lose, big time.
I'm partisan against nearly everything the Democrats stand for, and am for nearly everything the Republicans stand for. And there are anomolies in both parties, i.e. John McCain, Joe Lieberman.
Not really. The Republicans came into power House & Senate in 94.
I did not say anything about the congress, just that Clinton gave the Demos enough corruption to fill thier quota for awhile.
Well, they have less power, so if you ascribe to the theory that power corrupts, it's possible that they have had less opportunity to fully realize their potential for corruption, don't you think?</font>[/QUOTE] Recently perhaps... though a Dem sat in the Oval Office not long ago and his administration was anything but "clean". From the travel office to the blue dress and aspirin factories... they were probably the most corrupt administration since...
Just goes to prove that you can circle the wagons and survive... especially if you have a complicit Washington press corps (one that voted something in the neighborhood of 85% for the corrupt politician).
Yes... rightly or wrongly, he was undoing 40 years of Dems doing the exact same thing though perhaps not so obvious.
But how? Through legislation? </font>[/QUOTE] Through real cuts in the budget and programs.
The parties might just flip agendas.</font>[/QUOTE] Don't I wish... my family was Democrats since there was such a thing. It would be nice to see them as a party with relative consistency to the US Constitution again.
Yes it was. OTOH, one could argue that the deficit is actually a lower percentage at this point and that tax cuts have begun to grow us out of the depths of that problem.
Actually, I think that real investments in infrastructure and other useful things will be the real victim. The demise of our nation and system may very well be the "gray" lobby of the next 20 years who will expect more from the gov't and have the votes to get it.