Democrats & Liberals Archives

Tough On Corruption

It’s great to see the GOP taking a stand against corruption. They are utilizing a two-Prong approach to fixing the rampant corruption that has rocked their party.
They are attacking the issue with true GOP spirit and dedication.

Prong 1

John Boehner(The Answer)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
"This is the same John Boehner (pronounced bay-ner) who in the mid-1990s was caught handing out contributions from a tobacco political action committee on the House floor. Yes, the House floor. According to reports at the time, he stopped only when challenged by reform-minded Republican first-termers," the Houston Chronicle reported Here
"As one indignant Republican said at the time: 'If it's not illegal, it should be.'
He shares and is out in the open, perfect!

Prong 2

Tom Delay(The Teflon Don)
They punished indicted Rep. Tom Delay with a coveted seat on the appropriations Committee and a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department which is currently investigating influence-peddling.
Take that Tom Delay, you'll be working two jobs from now on(Talk about being "B%*#h Slapped", WOW!)

The GOP is obviously cracking down hard on it's members, who add to the perception that their party is corrupt.
It's inspirational to see the party of moralists, who have a "Contract with America", holding itself to such a high standard.
By introducing Boehner as their leader, they are able to clearly spell out their stance on corruption.
By dealing Tom Delay such a harsh punishment they are setting the future standard for their party and clearly showing the rest of us where their party is headed.
Not that we didn't already know ; )

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #122676


Talk about a conflict of interest! Come on, what were they thinking? This is like putting the cookie monster in charge of the cookie jar. How can a party so deep in corruption even consider putting the guy that is knee deep in it on the subcommittee overseeing the scandal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers, including Delay himself? While their at it, maybe they should appoint “Scooter” to the CIA counter-terrorism chief position that just opened.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 9, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #122677

Yep, the deterrents they are placing in the way of those in their own party who might be tempted by corruption are just monumental! GOP - all cleaned up now.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at February 9, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #122679

I love it when Democrats start calling Republicans corrupt. And vise versa.
Fact is BOTH are corrupt. Both need a good housecleaning. Washington needs a good house cleaning. Both Democrats and Republicans need to be thrown out of power.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 9, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #122683


I agree with you, we need to clean both houses and get rid of the career politicians, no matter what their party affiliation. However, the topic here was not about which party is corrupt, it is about the fact that the party that is at the center of several corruption scandals right now and promised to get tough on corruption would make a move like this.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 9, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #122687

(1) Last I heard from the ACLU, one was innocent until proven guilty, but yet we’re already talking about Tom Delay as if he was guilty. Talk about a conflict of interests!

(2) Boehner was handing out money from PAC’s?! Well, that is a problem! At last count I think democrat congressmen have only done one million seven hundred thousand and sixty-nine times. Boehner’s got some catching up to do!

(3) Corrupt congressmen? Hmmm, how about lying to a grand jury, opening yourself up to blackmailing by having an affair in the White House with a girl and a cigar (hello big tobacco!), cutting the military by 1/3 just because you don’t like them, and pardoning some of the most wanted and most in-debt criminals this country has arrest warrants for? NOW THAT WOULD BE AWFUL! As soon as the GOP does that, please do keep us informed.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 9, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #122696

Andre, the may not know it, but I believe the GOP is in the process of digging their own grave with all this hypocrisy and unchecked corruption.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 9, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #122705
(3) Corrupt congressmen? Hmmm, how about lying to a grand jury, opening yourself up to blackmailing by having an affair in the White House with a girl and a cigar (hello big tobacco!), cutting the military by 1/3 just because you don’t like them, and pardoning some of the most wanted and most in-debt criminals this country has arrest warrants for? NOW THAT WOULD BE AWFUL! As soon as the GOP does that, please do keep us informed.

Ok. How about “Scooter”? How about the President lying to the American people when he said “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” He was also under oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Clinton’s cuts in military spending had nothing to do with because “he didn’t like them”. It had to do with the end of the Cold War. The eventual Clinton military budget was exactly the same as the military budget proposed by Republican President Bush Sr. in his last year in office, who had already begun cuts.

Bill Clinton only beat Ronald Reagan in pardons by 3. Democratic President Bill Clinton granted 396 pardons in eight years, former Republican President Ronald Reagan did 393 pardons in eight years. The current President Bush has pardoned 58, including Jesse Ray Harvey, a domestic terrorist.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 9, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #122707

Does anyone have a contemporary history of Representatives who have gone infront of the Ethics committee and the results of each? I can’t find one anywhere!

Posted by: The BDB at February 9, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #122709

Who’s playing politics with corruption reform?

Senator McCain sent the following letter to Senator Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform. The following is the text from that letter:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.


John McCain, United States Senate

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 9, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #122710

It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

: )

That pardon crap really makes me mad.

The level of corruption is way out of control.

Essentially, their not accountable.
Watch all these crooks that did get caught get pardons, like the 140 felons Clinton released (including Dan Rostenkowski, who pled guilty for cryin’ out loud!).

Who says crime doesn’t pay.
The PC (Political Class) people are above the law.
Bush can even violate the 4th Amendment.
And, even if DeLay gets convicted, he’ll probably get a pardon too.
I see PC people !

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #122718

Jay Jay,

Umm, number one: The supreme court pardoned Harvey and that was considered a liberal victory. Alito, who you guys whined about and made Hitler cartoons out of … he voted with the liberal judges on the issue. An apology for disbelieving his open-mindedness is due, but not expected.

Number 2, a presidential pardon is not a stay of execution, it’s a complete withdrawl of all charges against the person in question.

Number 3, as someone who served in the Armed Forces I can tell you with flawless assurances that Clinton not only disliked the military, but military personnel. His visits to military bases were the lowest on record since FDR … even though he lied and said “The radical Muslims in the former Yugoslavia are worth lives, money, and military assets. Military spending went from 5.6% under Clinton to 4%. And I understand the Cold War was over (Thanks Ronny!) but I thought Clinton was supposed to be brilliant. How many times do brilliant people need to study history to learn that the last war wasn’t the last war?! Much like a house, you can trash the military in a short amount of time … it takes eons longer to rebuild it.

Number 4: Keep getting upset about an NSA wiretap program montioring overseas calls … and keep calling it a “domestic wiretapping program”. But, next time you fly from NYC to Yemen, you have to tell all your friends your on a “domestic” flight. Those poor Al Qaeda connections getting their civil rights violated … awwww … c’mon Daddy, be a good sport and just let ‘em blow us up!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #122733

Wow… Both parties will call the other on the carpet for corruption, but neither will recognize the corruption within their own ranks. If this thread alone doesn’t make that evident, I don’t know what will.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #122736


Number one: Harvey was pardoned by Bush Bush pardons coal mine bomber, 13 others

Number two: yea, so?

Number three: The President was not the only one advocating reduces military spending, as I said it started with Bush Sr., and It would not have been justified in the climate at the time. Clinton would have been bashed at the time if he would have kept the military at the previous levels.

Number 4: Right over your head! My comment wasn’t about being upset about the NSA spying program, it was about the President blately lying to the American people. You know just as well as I do this has nothing to do with protecting the civil rights of al-Qaeda or thier connections, its about the President lying and and sidestepping a law that is in place to allow for such activity. There are only 2 posible reasons for the President to circumvent the FISA. 1)He didn’t want to leave a record of who and why he was spying on. 2)The NSA was too lazy to do the paperwork.

If it was the second, then they should have hired a team of lawyers to handle it for them. I have a hard time believing that a government with a 2.7 trillion dollar budget cannot afford to hire lawyers to take care of the legal stuff.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 9, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #122747
(1) Last I heard from the ACLU, one was innocent until proven guilty, but yet we’re already talking about Tom Delay as if he was guilty. Talk about a conflict of interests!

Gotta love the way these Cons have become so proficient at taking the Libs words and twisting them into something they are not.

Nobody, said that Tom Delay was guilty. We said that it is a conflict of interests for the guy involved in an investigation by the Justice Department is on the subcomittee over seeing it. My Cookie Monster reference was to Tom Delay’s involvement in creating the money whore K-Street Project.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 9, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #122752


Of the three running, I liked Shadegg the best, and Boehner second best. I’m glad to see that Roy Blunt did not get the position.

Not thrilled with DeLay getting the appropriations nod, but also I recognize that he’s simply been accused so far, and not convicted. So throwing the book at him is a bit premature—-unless of course we want to reject DeLay’s civil liberties. That of course would go against the democratic notion of fairness (unless the “he’s a Republican so he doesn’t count” clause is invoked).

Dems should be careful about throwing matches onto the leaf pile that is corruption. Sometimes the leaves blow and you burn your own house down. Both parties can be shown to be corrupt. I actually hope they blow the whistle on each other, because it would show the corruption for what it is. But I expect they will stop short of that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 9, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #122761

The problem, the way I see it, is that the Republicans think DeLay and Boehner are the most honest for those jobs. A House committee searched far and wide and could come up with none who were better qualified.

Think about that for a minute…there is no way House leadership would not see what the appointments would do to important investigations, but they could find none better to serve…how far they have come since ‘94…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 9, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #122773

Andre M. Hernandez ,
Keep up the pressure.
Both sides are too corrupt.
They all look the other way.
None of them take reforms serious.
They can’t pass any common-sense reforms,
but they can vote themselves a raise in
a heartbeat.

The bar is set so, so low, that we’re calling some of the least irresponsible, responsible.

The incumbents won’t let newcomers pass any
reforms, and newcomers are always outnumbered.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #122772

If we had term limits, Delay and Boehner would have been gone a long time ago, corrupt or not.

It’s pretty obvious by now that people who have been in congress longer tend to be more corrupt (and more partisan, for that matter).

A constitutional amendment for term limits is the best way to clean up congress and make it more efficient.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 9, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #122778

Ken Cooper:

Obama and McCain already kissed an made up:;_ylt=AhRmRcNtA36BiGAg0_tDX5KWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5


Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #122784

digging their own grave with all this hypocrisy and unchecked corruption

Adrienne, I think we all expect hypocrisy from the people who nominated Bush after years of investigating Clintons financial dealings and personal life. The unchecked corruption is just arrogance, which must be added to the list of the main requirements for leadership in their party. If I could have picked one person who would be the worst possible successor to Delay, that would be Boehner, pronounced Baynor, I believe. His arrogance in the matter of the tobacco money just surpassed anything I ever heard of in Washington.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 9, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #122789

“A constitutional amendment for term limits is the best way to clean up congress and make it more efficient.”

We have term limits, they’re called elections. And the only people who benefit from formal term limits are lobbyists.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 9, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #122806

I love watching this list grow:


Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #122807

We have term limits, they’re called elections.

Not good enough. There are quite a few people from both parties who should have been gone a long time ago, for the good of the country and their own parties.
Many are doing good enough by their states to get re-elected, but are corrupt and/or have not been good for the country. Like Delay. Also, some of the older ones are hurting the image of their own parties. Like Kennedy.

And the only people who benefit from formal term limits are lobbyists.

Not any more than they do now. Probably less, since newer congressmen tend to be less corrupt.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 9, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #122808

Don’t need term limits if voters simply do what they were supposed to be doing all along: simply vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist.

With the bar set so low, it’s not hard to look fairly responsible compared to most (if not all) that are in the gutter.

If there are any really good politicians, who are they? Mind you, unless you can name at least 268 (half of 535) in of Congress, then the majority do not deserve to stay, and that is the price they should pay for looking the other way.

If there are any good ones (and there may be a very few that come close), who are they?

Lets have a contest. I say following come close, but still have a few things to explain:

(1) John McCain (AZ)
(2) Tom Coburn (OK)

They aren’t from my state (TX), so it’s not up to me at all. There’s no incumbent from my state that I want to vote for.

If there are any good politicians, shouldn’t they stick out like a bloody sore thumb ?

WARNING: Before you nominate someone, check there voting record and what they do and say. Very, very few are not guilty of voting for pork-barrel, rejecting common-sense, no-brainer reforms (i.e. campaign finance, election reform, tax reform, budget reform, etc.), and even the best of them (by their own admission) look the other way, troll for campaign money for their campaign war chests, pander, and are too beholding to their big-money-donors.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #122816

d.a.n. and Traveler,

I hear you loud and clear. And I agree. The problem I’ve faced, more often than not, is having to choose the lesser of two evils rather than the most qualified candidate.

That’s why I like seeing these veterans, most with no prior political experience, jumping into the fight. I’m all for a change in the staus-quo.


Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #122825

its bad enough that i cant vote to reelect a president more than once and now you’re proposing that i will have my rights restricted further by not being able to vote for a congressman or woman that i want to vote for? term limits are nothing more than a restriction on my freedom

Posted by: mike h at February 9, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #122844

We agree on something at least. I’m for term limits. 3 terms for a senator. Raise house reps terms to 3 years so they don’t have to constantly campaign and give them a 4 term limit. Raise Pres’s term to 5 years and keep the 2 term limit. (Whether dem or repub, a president should spend less than 25% of his time campaigning.)

Corruption is bad in Congress, always has been. I was a fan of Duke Cunningham but he did more than just denigrate his party. He was a decorated veteran and was a role model to many. Now he’s a bum. It’s a sad American story. It’s too bad our politics turn an American hero into something like he became. But don’t get me wrong, I’m a conservative. The main fault lies with Duke and not some erroneous fact like his Dad got drunk and called him nasty names when Duke was a boy.

And if liberals think their politicians are less apt to be corrupt … you might want to check out Canada’s recent history … or our own history in the 90’s.

The bottom line is we need to come together. If this latest rage over a little cartoon doesn’t make people realize we have WWIII on our hands I don’t know what will. (There’s no diplomacy or surrender with idiots.) I go against libs not because I think their ideals are bad but because of the way they handle themselves. You think Bush is divisive? Yeah, maybe he’s comes on a little strong but I’ll take that in this day and age. Libs haven’t helped the divisiveness by wholeheartedly supporting the idea of WMD in Iraq ( then yelling “Bush Lied! Bush Lied!” when the war’s barely started. Getting political at funerals, calling a program that monitors overseas calls “domestic” …. the bottom line for liberals is this: Would you rather deal with conservatives or radical Islam? How about we win WWIII first then we can go back to slamming each other.

It’s easy to complain. There’s a 5 year old across the street that does it every day!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 9, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #122877

Politicians won’t reform themselves.

Politicians won’t ever pass reforms that reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain.

The voters must be tough on corruption, and always vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, every election. That’s what the voters were supposed to be doing all along.

All we need to know is which politicians to keep.
So, I started the list above.
It only has two names on it.
Come on people.
Surely you can find at least 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible ?

No ?

Well, then we are in a heap of trouble.
We are swimmin’ upstream with an anvil around our neck.
We are up $#!+ creek without a paddle.

What’s the obvious solution?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #122901

For all the republicans out there who just want to point out that Dems might be corrupt too…
I’d be happy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fine, let’s just all agree not to cast a single vote for any incumbent.
The sooner we stop pointing out that “the other guy’s party is just as bad” and start demanding honesty from all our representatives, the sooner we’ll have honest government.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…” (congressional oath of office)
Who of us can honestly say that their representatives have THAT OATH foremost in their minds?
For that matter, which of the haranguing posters here think that the Constitution is more important than their own party loyalties.

Ken said:
“c’mon Daddy, be a good sport and just let ‘em blow us up!”
Wow, what a misrepresentation of the truth. I thought about not responding to that, but I figured you just misunderstood FISA. All it takes it a warrant, you know. (For more info, see that “Constitution” thingy I was just talking about.)

Oh, and d.a.n., Tom Coburn? The crossword guy? Surely you jest.

Posted by: Guy With Idea at February 9, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #122928


You argued that lobbyists won’t be better off with term limits than they are currently. Unfortunately, every piece of research published in this area disagrees with you.

It boils down to information, the information legislators use to craft legislation. Some of that information is technical in nature, meaning it deals with the how and why of policy. Some of that information is, for want of a better word, political. By that, I mean both a sense of how to move legislation effectively through the process, and also in a sense of how to communicate policy effectively to constituents.

One of the (perhaps few) benefits of not having formal term limits is that legislators are expected to specialize. Committee systems facilitate this; at their best, they’re warehouses of expertise.

Term limits really demolish expertise. I live in a term limits state, Missouri. Between 2003-2004, term limits forced over 60% of our state legislature out of office and caused a huge power and information vacuum. Besides all the published literature on this, I went to the source. One of my best friends is a lobbyist in Jeff City, and I got him drunk and I asked him about it.

He was incredibly candid. He told me that it was the easiest thing in the world to push information onto newbie legislators - they don’t have expertise in policy (we have a truly short-term legislature, it meets about 4 months per year), and they don’t have much knowledge about the legislative process.

Who’s there to provide that expertise?

Lobbyists. And pretty much nobody else, because the folks who’ve been there 20 years and know all the highways and byways are gone, or they’ve become lobbyists themselves.

Now I know incumbency is a dirty word with a lot of folks on this blog, fair enough. And I am all for good government. But I really do encourage my friends and colleagues here not to just rush into knee-jerk solutions that might be worse than the original problem.

Sorry for the long post, gang.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 9, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #122957

I really don’t see it as dealing with corrupt congress men, in as much as dealing with the sleaze bag lobbyist. They could care less about our country and the people of the United States of Amerca, all they care about is filling there creedy pockets, that are already so full of money that they can’t possibly spend it. And one more thing a lie is a lie is a lie, whether it is under oath or just in a newscast talking to the american public. So get off the part about Clinton lied under oath, Jesus was never under oath, and it doesn’t say” that though shall not lie under oath, Its very plain and simple THOUGH SHALL NOT LIE! period. If you want to clean up our congress, get rid of the lobbyist that is destroying our country. And as far as saying the have the freedom of speech, is bull. Every american has the right to freedom of speech, but I don’t consider someone that is hired to go out and cause trouble and bribe our official as a ligimate form of freespeech, its not free when they are getting paid to say what they are saying. Please excuse me if I am not the best of using the english language. But thank you for letting me say my feelings

Posted by: Zuk at February 9, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #122978

Hey, Ron,

Get a grip, buddy. There’s a difference!

When Ken Starr spent millions of our tax dollars pusuing the Lewinski issue with Clinton, keep in mind that the only hint of a reason for relevence there was that Clinton lied about Monica and that Starr had been appointed to investigate White Water…Starr found NOTHING on the Clintons with respect to White Water, but Lewinski was relevent only as a character witness to show possible dishonesty since Clinton SAID he had no mis-dealings with respect to McDougal or White Water.

How rediculous is that, especially when you caompare it to ACTUAL CORRUPTION AND INFLUENCE peddling with Abramoff and Bush? We have Caught Bush in an irrefutable lie:

…clearly Bush DID know Abramoff, the corruption we are talking about IS related to government and the running of this country, and yet he still lies about it and too many in this country think that this is comparable to sins they percieve in the DEMOCRATS…


How can anyone consider themselves ‘CONSERVATIVE’ and yet support those who piss on law and piss on the U.S. Constitution?

I have the same question I have had since Newt Gingrich…What are these conservatives foolish enough to imagine they are CONSERVING? …CONSERVATIVE of WHAT exactly? I want to know. It’s important. I wish they, and you, Ron, would have the courage to ask it themselves.


Posted by: RGF at February 9, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #122980

>>Keep getting upset about an NSA wiretap program montioring overseas calls … and keep calling it a “domestic wiretapping program”.


Cheney/Bush has admitted to the crime of domestic eaves dropping, he just hasn’t agreed that it’s a crime. But, as to your statement…how do you know who he’s spying on? Do you believe him when he says it is only al Qaida calls? Did you believe Tricky-Dicky when he said “I am not a crook”, as he broke into offices? Did you believe Slick-Willie when he said “I have not had sexual relations with that woman”? Why do you believe the lies of one and not the others? Face it…DUBBYA LIES!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #123109

“Tough On Corruption

It’s great to see the GOP taking a stand against corruption. They are utilizing a two-Prong approach to fixing the rampant corruption that has rocked their party.
They are attacking the issue with true GOP spirit and dedication.”

This part is funny!

The Republicans put on a good show don’t they?

Behind closed doors there are still more hard heads to roll…So just reheat the leftover pizzia and make more popcorn because the Republicans got the VCR in fast-rewind!

Posted by: T.P. at February 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #123123

Hey, Ken Cooper,

Get real. The end of the Cold War actually REQUIRED a reduction in military spending. If it hadn’t happened, Clinton would not have been elected a second time! The economy was going extremely well, we were at peace and Clinton, unlike this administration, was GOOD at forging peace in the world (Remember the OSLO ACCORDS?).
When we had to exert military force, as in the former Yugoslavia, Clinton was a capable enough diplomat to gain UN support so as to share the burden and spare American lives (…and expenses).

I understand that being in the military tends to make a person take the point of view that appears to justify the military in general, but do you really think the military solution is the ONLY solution? …and do you really think this administration is doing you, or anyone military or otherwise, any favors?
We are spending immense amounts of money, and more importanty, LIVES and for what? We have yet see stability in either Afghanistan or Iraq and we are earning even larger numbers of vehement enemies faster than ever before! I don’t get what it is that makes sense to you about what we are doing as a nation lately.


Posted by: RGF at February 10, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #123142

“Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public Thursday that President Bush met him “almost a dozen” times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.
“The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.
Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch.”

From Yahoo News. com
“Indicted former top White House aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby will argue that Vice President Dick Cheney authorized him to leak classified information in 2003 to bolster the case for the US-led war against Iraq, US news media reports.”

How much money did the Clinton”blow-job” cost taxpayers?
The act itself $0(There is the dry-cleaning bill of $20). The Republican witch-hunt millions.
How much money has the Bush administration lies and corruption cost the tax payers? Hundreds of billions and counting.
How many people died as a result of the Clinton “blow-job”? 0, unless you want to count the thousands of future little Clintons that died causing the $20 dry-cleaning bill.(thousands of little Clinton’s dying should have made the Republicans happy)

Those people who continue to support the Republican party even though they know they’re corrupt are doing a disservice to their party.
Supporting the Democratic party, who seem confused and weak is almost equally destructive.
I will never vote party line unless that happens to be the best candidate.
Those who voted for Bush and the corrupt Republicans were duped. To continue to support those who lied to you is your own problem, not your party’s

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #123185


Another Bush lie:

“Nobody could have predicted the failure of the levees.”


“Top Department of Homeland Security officials were told that New Orleans was flooding just a few hours after Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, former disaster chief Michael Brown said Friday, contradicting previous statements by agency officials who said they did not know the magnitude of the problem until the next day.

“I find it a little disingenuous,” Michael Brown, who at the time headed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told a Senate oversight committee. “For them to claim that we didn’t have awareness of it is just baloney.”

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #123240

Guy With Idea,

Oh, and d.a.n., Tom Coburn? The crossword guy? Surely you jest.

Yes. I do not defend any incumbents.
I’m just trying to list the least corrupt.

Because that’s where we are these days.

The bar is set so low, we no longer look for responsible politicians.

We are relegated to trying to pick the least corrupt.

So, what are your complaints against Tom Coburn?
Got any against John McCain ?

Got any picks of your own ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 10, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #123242

The act itself: $0
The dry-cleaning bill: $20
The Republican witch-hunt: pricele$$

Posted by: d.a.n at February 10, 2006 12:41 PM
Post a comment