Democrats & Liberals Archives

GOP At The Crossroads

Every week we hear of yet another Republican Congressman arrested, indicted, or under investigation. My own Congressman, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, will spend a few years in jail, documents just surfaced that implicate Congressman John Doolittle (R-Ca.) in a money-for-influence scam, and let’s not forget Congressman DeLay’s indictment for money laundering. In fact, House Republicans will gather this Thursday to elect Tom DeLay’s successor.

Congressman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is the frontrunner for the position. He has strong ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his K Street connections are in the same league as Tom DeLay's, and he's transferred money through Tom DeLay's now suspect political organizations. In short, elevating Congressman Blunt to the House leadership position signals Republican's endorsement their culture of corruption.

Congressman Blunt's challengers, Reps. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), believe the Republican Party must reform itself, root out corrupt members, and grapple with basic conservative issues like curtailing pork-barrel politics, reducing the size of the government, fiscal responsibility, and reversing the flow of power from the federal government back to state and local governments -- all of which have been neglected for years, and all of which are in danger of being co-opted by the Democratic Party.

Republican Congressmen concerned about the wrong turn their party has taken sent a letter to their colleagues citing polls that show Americans believe Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats by a two-to-one ratio and that voters associate convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff with the GOP almost 15 to one. "We must realize that the Majority we have all worked so hard for is in jeopardy. The only choice is to embrace real reform," they wrote.

The GOP is at a crossroads. We'll find out this week if Republicans are capable of reforming themselves, or if they'll continue to foster a culture of corruption in Congress.

Posted by American Pundit at January 30, 2006 8:39 AM
Comments
Comment #118451

We need checks and balances again. If one party runs everything, the inherent corruption of washington only gets magnified.

So what do we learn from this? NOthing. We will keep electing dems or repugs because we are stupid people.

We deserve the washington we have right now.

Posted by: tree hugger at January 30, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #118457

I’m reminded of a quote:

More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. - Woody Allen
Posted by: William Cohen at January 30, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #118473

We deserve the washington we have right now.
Posted by: tree hugger at January 30, 2006 09:18 AM

I am up to here with the people whio think that they have more integrity becuase they vote outside the two-party system. Do yourself a favor and let those illusion that you’re making a difference by trying to work outside the system. See what supporting self-aggrandizing millionaires like Nader get you? it gets you Bush. If the purpose is to push the system into feudalism, you’re a success. The rest of us aren’t so happy.

Posted by: On the outs at January 30, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #118485

I am up to here with the people whio think that they have more integrity becuase they vote outside the two-party system. Do yourself a favor and let those illusion that you’re making a difference by trying to work outside the system. See what supporting self-aggrandizing millionaires like Nader get you? it gets you Bush. If the purpose is to push the system into feudalism, you’re a success. The rest of us aren’t so happy.

====================

Wake up, a third party doesn’t give you bush goofball. I don’t claim to have more integrity, they whole point of my post was to point out that you, and the side you are opposed to are really only interested in pointing out “who has more integrity”, its nauseating and pointless. Nader has accomplished more in his lifetime and raised more questions than any repub or dem, however don’t mistake him for the only alternative. If you think your going to make a difference perpetuating the same dysfunctional system, your on crack.

anyway, a vote for someone you believe in isn’t a wasted vote, even though you have swallowed that rationale hook line and sinker. I feel bad for you.

Bush was elected for many more reasons than a third party candidate. To me, a democrat isn’t a suitable enough alternative for the sweeping progressive change i believe is neccessary to bring out culture back into balance, into a sustainable lifestyle that isn’t corporate driven, that isn’t a product— where billionares aren’t the policy drivers, in the way the are with the Repubs and how they would be exactly the same with democrats.

They are all the same.

Posted by: crusader at January 30, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #118487

Corruption has no party affiliation. It is affiliated, however, with power, and currently Republicans are in power. This means that Republicans have more opportunity for corruption. If the shoe were on the other foot, with Democrats in power, they would likewise have more opportunity for corruption.

The real corruption is not within the parties—it is within the system. We need to get rid of earmarks, for instance, which funnel money to individual areas. We need to do more than change laws so that lobbyists can not give a $51 luncheon. As if anyone can be bought or sold for a $50 lunch!!

There should be a limit that a Congressman/woman can receive annually. Don’t really care what the amount is—-$1000, $5000, $10,000. I doubt that they can be bought for any of the above sums. I WANT lobbyists to have access, since some of the time it will be someone lobbying MY point of view. Access is not the problem. The problem is when the dollars reach a point where they take control.

I hope John Shadegg is the guy to take over. He seems the best bet to actually provide reform for the GOP, as opposed to the others why will give only the appearance of reform, in my opinion.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 30, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #118498

At least the Republicans aren’t taking their money from the Chinese army- ring a bell? Or selling the Lincoln bedroom. Or raising money from Buddhist nuns.

Can anyone take a breath from your Bush bashing long enough to admit that Abramoff’s organization has 7 dedicated lobbyists who work only with Democrats and that they gave nearly $2million to Democrats since 2001? Yes, the Republicans received even more money that that from Abramoff, but they are not the only problem.

You should all go back and read George Washington’s farewell address- he predicted that loyalty to an internal group other than the nation was a dangerous thing. America’s worst enemy is allegiance to something/anything other than our nation.

Joebagodonuts is right. The system needs to be fixed. Term limits, limits on annual receipts, etc. Lets focus on electing real reformers (democrat or republcan) that will help clean up this system. Let’s learn and lesson from McCain/Feingold while we are at it.

Posted by: Peaceandlove at January 30, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #118533

This “Culture of Corruption” charge to just the Republicans is bull; both parties are corrupt, everybody knows that. And, this Ambramhoff scandal will expose both parties and (mostly) lobbyists in general.


Congress needs to cut spending before they do anything else. Period.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 30, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #118572

I believe as citizens of this great country,we are missing the point.We continue to believe that we live under a “Democracy”,which means “By the People and For the Peolpe”.Truth is we live in a Capitalistic country were the interests of the individual supercede that of the people.Our elected officials are only concerned about the 1%- those wealthy individuals who give millions in campaign contributions to elect a government that serves special interests instead of public interests. It makes me wonder why we are in Iraq trying to “spread democracy” when everyday in America we continue to lose more and more of our rights. Dont take my word for it,research it!!

Posted by: Madjac1 at January 30, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #118591

Wake up, a third party doesn’t give you bush goofball. I don’t claim to have more integrity, they whole point of my post was to point out that you, and the side you are opposed to are really only interested in pointing out “who has more integrity”, its nauseating and pointless. Nader has accomplished more in his lifetime and raised more questions than any repub or dem, however don’t mistake him for the only alternative. If you think your going to make a difference perpetuating the same dysfunctional system, you’re on crack.

I think you’re the one who’s smoking the crack, to use the over-used word. I think you need a healthy dose of the reality of politics if you like using terms like “dysfunction” and “corporate” so much. It shows how oblivious you are to reality and to history.

Tell me then, when was there a “functional” age in our system that wasn’t dominated by special interests? Was it during the founding of the US, when everyone was excluded from the process except land owning white guys? Or how about the great depression, when graft catapaulted people to office from the political machine to Congress?

Nader is a pathetic relic clinging to a past that will never return. To hitch your wagon to that loser is symbolic of your ignorance that by creating another party we would suddenly leave all vestiges of the last incarnation behind. Seriously, you need to do some studying. You also need to let go of you rose-colored glasses, too. Like Nader isn’t looking for power and acceptance by adopting his stance of being an “outsider”. He can rest on his trust fund and play the rebel.

Posted by: On the outs at January 31, 2006 6:41 AM
Comment #118608

At least the Republicans aren’t taking their money from the Chinese army- ring a bell? Or selling the Lincoln bedroom. Or raising money from Buddhist nuns.

Yeah, the GOP is taking its money from the Saudi Royal family (who funded the schools that produced the 9/11 terrorists), Reverend Moon, and a bunch of nuts who want to bring about the end of the world (Pat Robertson) - real good company, solid citizens.

Can anyone take a breath from your Bush bashing long enough to admit that Abramoff’s organization has 7 dedicated lobbyists who work only with Democrats and that they gave nearly $2million to Democrats since 2001? Yes, the Republicans received even more money that that from Abramoff, but they are not the only problem.

Pee-shaw! That’s no big deal at all! So how many Democrats got money in the five-year period you’re talking about? That’s about 400g a year and let’s say its ten Democrats. All told, about 40g compared to the tens of millions that the GOP got. Sounds like somebody bought someone else a beer compared to buying the brewery for them.

Posted by: GOPing in the darkness at January 31, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #118609

Bush was elected for many more reasons than a third party candidate. To me, a democrat isn’t a suitable enough alternative for the sweeping progressive change i believe is neccessary to bring out culture back into balance, into a sustainable lifestyle that isn’t corporate driven, that isn’t a product— where billionares aren’t the policy drivers, in the way the are with the Repubs and how they would be exactly the same with democrats.

They are all the same.

Posted by: crusader at January 30, 2006 11:13 AM

Someone needs to come back from fantasy land and get their head in reality. When has money or wealth not dictated what happened in the course of politics? Get off the high horse Chairman Mao. Third parties only become two parties that become just like the parties they replace.

What if change isn’t “progressive”? You bandy that term around like it’s going to bring about utopia. You need to look at every revolution and see what it produced - pretty much the same thing that it had before……

Posted by: The Amnesiac at January 31, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #118612

The most interesting thing to me on this topic is the fact that a Republican didn’t write it. You don’t find articles discussing the Republican Party over in the red column.

Other than being racists, the one thing most Republican voters have in common is that they have no idea what their Party is doing.

Get a typical Republican started on liberals and they’ll yak your ear off, but ask ‘em about what the Republican Party’s up to and they’re clueless.

BTW, thank you JBOD for being the only right winger to address the issue. I’m with you. I hope Shadegg can pull out a win. It’ll signal that the Republican Party is serious about long-term governance and traditional conservative ideals.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 31, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #118682

Wake up Democrats think they are something they are not - mainstream.

Mainstream America gets it! Democrats don’t.

Posted by: Reporter for Doody at January 31, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #118754

Uh huh… Thanks for making my point, Doody.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 31, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #119492

Doody, the topic is the Republican Party. Any thoughts on who should take DeLays place now that he’s been indicted for money laundering?

Do you favor (A) the guy who’ll also eventually get drawn into the investigation? (B) The guy who talks reform, but wields power like DeLay? Or(C) the guy everyone thinks is serious about reform?

Don’t worry if you don’t know their names, I’m sure most Republicans haven’t a clue. You can just choose A, B, or C.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 2, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #120045

Boehner got the nod. Hurray for the House Republicans!

Posted by: American Pundit at February 3, 2006 11:09 AM
Post a comment