Democrats & Liberals Archives

Veteran Republican Advocates a Democratic House

To give you an idea of how bad the House smells, the veteran California Republican Pete McCloskey, who lost his primary challenge to the incumbent chairman of the House Resources Committee Richard Pombo, wrote a letter endorsing Jerry McNerney, the Democrat in the district race, and expressing the need for a Democratic majority in the House in 2007.

McCloskey was so upset with Pombo's sleazy campaign, that he wrote a letter that begins:

"I am a Republican, intend to remain a Republican, and am descended from three generations of California Republicans, active in Merced and San Bernardino Counties as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. ...

I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents."

After a description of some of the sleaze that was thrown at him, McCloskey said this:

"The observation of Mr. Pombo's political consultant, Wayne Johnson, that I have been mired in the obsolete values of the 1970s, honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets, all rejected by today's modern Republicans, is only too accurate.

"I have therefore reluctantly concluded that party loyalty should be set aside, and that it is in the best interests of the nation, and indeed the future of the Republican Party itself, to return control of the House to temporary Democrat control, if only to return the House for a time to the kind of ethics standards practiced by Republicans in former years. I say reluctantly, having no great illusion that Democrats or any other kind of politician will long resist the allure of campaign funds and benefits offered by the richest and most profitable of the Halliburtons, oil companies, tobacco companies, developers and Indian gaming tribes whose contributions so heavily dominate the contributions to Congressmen Pombo and Doolittle."

What a man! He prefers "honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets." He recognizes that none of these things can be found in the current Republican-controlled House. Though he is a long-time Republican, and still professes to be a Republican, he would rather the Democrats took over the House.

Though McCloskey is a Republican, he thinks of himself first as a citizen of the U.S. who wants the government run according to high standards of ethics. He is willing to have the Democrats take over for awhile. Wow! This is real patriotism!

OK, Republicans, are you going to heed McCloskey's call?

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 4, 2006 5:22 PM
Comments
Comment #173368

My bet:
The GOPers will start by calling him a traitorous RINO and then try to change the subject by comparing him to Zell Miller and/or Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #173374

Can you say “sour grapes”?

And I would say the same thing if the parties were reversed. He got beat by another person in his same party and then lost his temper with this endorsement. Maybe “sore loser” is more appropriate.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 4, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #173385

I really miss the days of honest, ethical Republicans like McCloskey. And I’m pretty sure that plenty of real, true conservative voters do, too.

Btw Liberals, here’s a heads up on what we can expect from the GOP before the election:
91-page Republican playbook for ‘homestretch’ campaigning
You just gotta love Rawstory for managing to get on top of this kind of thing so frequently!

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #173388

Adrienne,

A superficial read and it looks like just more of the same. They try to claim the moral high ground and ignore the economic realities.

David R.
Maybe you should put McCloskey on a potential V.O.I.D. fill list.

Ken,
So you think this guy is a big cry baby? It sounds more like he’s disgusted with the culture of corruption and the protofascist Bush Republicanism:

Mr. Pombo has used his position and power to shamelessly enrich his wife and family from campaign funds, has interfered with the federal investigation of men like Michael Hurwitz, he of the Savings & Loan frauds and ruthless clear-cutting of old growth California redwoods. Mr. Pombo has taken more money from Indian gaming lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribes interested in gaming than any other Member of Congress, in excess of $500,000. With his stated intent to gut the Endangered Species and Environmental Protection Acts, to privatize for development millions of acres of public land, including a number of National Parks, to give veto power to the Congress over constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, his substantial contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund, and most particularly his refusal to investigate the Abramoff involvement in Indian gaming and the exploitation of women labor in the Marianas, both matters within the jurisdiction of his committee, Mr. Pombo in my view represents all that is wrong with the national government in Washington today.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #173407

Could he be sore for losing, yes, but he did make a valid statement about honesty, ethics, and a balanced budget. Seems that we are now getting representatives from both parties that are more intersted in me,me,me instead of looking out for the good of the country.
Laws need to be changed to take away the money lobbiest have, and make every dollar that comes into a race is accounted for and that it is a valid donation. We as a nation have to make Congress accountable for what they do.

Posted by: KT at August 4, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #173410

so why, then, did he get beat? didn’t he get the message out about the shady character he was up against? or are people just not so interested in the “shady” side of candidates?

Posted by: myles at August 4, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #173411

If he had won his race, do you think he would still be endorsing democrats? Please. He has to blame SOMEBODY for his loss. Democrats do the same thing. That’s what these blogs are filled with - blame.

Posted by: G.K. at August 4, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #173416

you anti american democrats may cut and run for fun but at least you get Barcley. He fits in well with the rest of you jerks

Posted by: Joe at August 4, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #173426

and Tom Delay, Karl, Newt, Rush, bush… they all fit together so nicely too.

Who is Barcley?

Posted by: myles at August 4, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #173428

G.K.

What Democrats are endorsing which Rebublicans?

Posted by: mark at August 4, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #173430

This guy sounds like me. Republican, but so ticked off at party leaders or realistically party blowhards, ideologues and exploiters of the Christian faith. I hope Dems take over Congress-not by much-just a couple of seats so it remains competitive-we’ve seen what massive majorities do. And they better not mess with Bush. (impeachment) We’ve got enough going on to worry about. Plus wouldn’t that put Dick Cheney in power? Or would he get impeached too?

Again, not for long either. Actually I would prefer if Congress changed hands every 2 or 4 years, just so no party could get too entrenched. But the last thing we need is more fake-Christian Republicans controlling Congress.

I have no great love for the Democratic Party, let me make that clear. Unfortunately, Republicans have proven themselves incapable of governance. Here’s hoping Democrats prove better at it.

Posted by: Silima at August 4, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #173431
My bet: The GOPers will start by calling him a traitorous RINO and then try to change the subject by comparing him to Zell Miller and/or Joe Lieberman.

Dave1:

No, that’s the Democrats’ job (and Lieberman speaks for himself).

OK, Republicans, are you going to heed McCloskey’s call?

Paul:

In short, no. But I’m not going to throw McCloskey under the bus either. I give him credit for speaking his mind, while simultaneously throwing his political career as a GOPer out the window. But oh well…

So, essentially, Paul, you’re trying to prove that there are some honest Republicans out there and that the House should be ruled by Democrats only until the Republicans clean up their act?

I don’t know, you’re sending mixed messages, are you politically confused, Paul?

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 4, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #173437

Alex Fitzsimmons

Another Republican Hero

“Republicans are committed to protecting these traditional values by fostering a culture of life, protecting children, banning internet gambling and upholding the rule of law.”

Speaking of politically confused, remember all those Republicans defending William (Book Of Virtues)Bennett when we found out how much he spent gambling?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.green.html

I guess gambling is ok as long as it is not internet gambling?

Posted by: 037 at August 4, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #173438

Silima

I feel your pain. I left the Democratic party after Bill Clinton wagged his finger in my face and said he “didn’t have sex with that woman.” Though I had him pegged for a liar at “I didn’t inhale”. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t offer anything better. They talk a good game but that is all it is….talk.

Posted by: 037 at August 4, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #173439

Paul:

As a Republican I would consider voting democrat this year. The problem is that the Democratic party is so screwed up right now.

Remember Howard Dean’s words, “I hate Repubicans and everything they stand for”. So the head of your party hates me, and you want me to vote your way.

I could accept that it is the Democratic parties turn if you (you as you democrats) had fired him. But you let his outrageous comments stand making you complicit in them.

Number Two: Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? She is an extreme left wind San Francisco Liberal.

Here is the deal. You fire your New England Liberal Chairman, and your San Francisco Liberal Pelosi.

Number Three: Look at what you are doing to Joe Lieberman. If there isn’t room for Joe Lieberman in your party then there isn’t room for me. I am a moderate. Look what you do to moderates!!!

Republicans have screwed things up so bad I am more open than I have ever been to looking for a change. I can’t because you guys look like the bar scene on star wars.

Craig

PS. Drop the Bush hatred, it looks ugly on you. Start talking about ideas to lead the country by.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 5, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #173440

The guy can voice his opinion. Naturally Republicans will never trust him again. What a surprise! How do Dems feel about Zell Miller these days?

I can understand his idea that a Dem victory might chastise Republicans. I also am convinced that a Dem victory in the House would increase the chances of a Republican victory in 2008. But when I think of the damage Pelosi, Conyers and Waxman could do in two years AND that they might become a more permanent affliction, I cannot agree with McCloskey.

Posted by: Jack at August 5, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #173442

A Dem Victory, you are on drugs, hippy

Posted by: Joe at August 5, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #173444

Silima,

Good point. I think that the problem here is campaign finance. The Democrats are less corrupt than the Republicans are right now - but that is only because they have no power. If the Dems gain power, the money will just go to work on them. We need public financing of elections.

I have always accepted my fathers wisdom. He used to say that you should always vote a straight ticket for the same party that you voted for President. He said why would you elect a man President to lead the country and then tie his hands so that he can’t do anything? Alas, this President has convinced that dear old Dad was full of beans. I now think that all Presidents need their hands tied. Maybe they won’t be able to do anything but at least they won’t be able to hurt us.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 5, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #173447

Ray, the only beans around here are the ones your dad ate cause you are huffing off his ass, Bill Clinton did more damage to this country by letting these terrorist build up during his run and looking the other way while that whale was under his desk bobbing on his knob, that you democrats should be kicked out of the country for voting that scumbag in.

Posted by: Joe at August 5, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #173450

Paul,

Pete McCloskey sounds like a good guy. I too am for “honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets,” among other things. But what confounds me is how you imagine that Democrats are any better. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.

I am a Conservative and I would be happy to hear what Liberals think is good for this country. I only caution you to not confuse Republicans for Conservatives. Nor Democrats for Liberals for that matter.

Posted by: Charlie at August 5, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #173453

Joe,

I think you should find this informative:

click here.

Can we send the neocons to Texas and nuke it?

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 5, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #173458


Mr. McClosky is not the only conservative sick of the abismal leadership of the Republican administration and even more of the GOP right wing followers who have taken over the Republican party.
I am continually puzzeled over the lamb like quality of obedience to the incredible inept leadership of this administration.
I too feel disillusioned by the direction of the Republicans.
John

Posted by: ibpeedto at August 5, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #173462

Joe said
“Bill Clinton did more damage to this country by letting these terrorist build up during his run and looking the other way.”

Thats funny I seem to remember bombing Sadaam on a daily basis. And cruise missles in Afghanistan and Africa. Of course the Republicans kept saying it was Wag The Dog.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

You should try the drugs, then you will have an excuse for your lack of memory.

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #173466

Joe; if the first bush had some balls he would of went in and taken out saddam in the first gulf war, but then again he is friends with saddam to begin with. Ronnie sent rumsfeld to Iraq in dec 1983, and they were all buddy buddy. If I remember right we help supplied arms to saddam while they were fighting iran.
You got to love the oil money…

Posted by: KT at August 5, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #173473

Friends today can be enemies tomorrow…..thats politics the world over. We were friends with Japan before Pearl Harbor and we’re friends with them now. Who was buddy buddy then has nothing to do with today.

McCloskey is a sore loser. Sour grapes all the way.

Craig,
Like your post - great points. I noticed that they weren’t answered by the liberals on board.

As disappointed as I am with some Republicans right now, I can’t in good concience vote Democratic. In Michigan, you must vote your party, no split tickets. I’m left with either voting a Republican I don’t like in or not voting. I’ll vote him/her in rather than let a Democrat I don’t like win by default.

Posted by: MWF/CCR at August 5, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #173479


Graig,

“Dean served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 1994 to 1995; during his term, Vermont paid off much of its public debt and had a balanced budget 11 times, lowering income taxes twice.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

This is what you call Liberal? I guess based on Bush being a conservative, they are for bigger government, deficit spending, and intrusion into peoples personal life.

“If there isn’t room for Joe Lieberman in your party then there isn’t room for me.”

Lieberman is in trouble in his own district because he backs Bush’s failed poilicy. You can have him.

Not sure what the Star Wars comment means. Although Yoda was pretty wise. and Chewbacca was cool. Is Bush Jabaa the Hut or Jar Jar Binks?

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #173480

oops forgot this one

“As governor, Dean was endorsed by the National Rifle Association several times,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Vermont_political_career

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #173482

Pelosi that crazy liberal.

Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Neal Boortz has deemed San Francisco “Pelosi Land”. In San Francisco, however, Pelosi is sometimes seen as more moderate than liberal, because she voted for the Patriot Act (which she now opposes) and authored the Presidio Trust Act, which privatized the Presidio of San Francisco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

MWF/CCR
Does this help answer Craig?

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #173483

As a Californian and veteran of that stupid gobernatorial recall I remember the debates involved. Gray Davis, Swartzenegger and McClosky. It was aparrent to everyone that McClosky was the only one that actually was forthright and honest. He was wrong on many issues but you knew where he stood. Would there were more like him.
This race is one of the rare times that I disagree with the endorsement of my union(Carpenters). We are endorsing Pombo. It is understandable as our pacs focus is to create more jobs for the membership. We like to build stuff, but at what cost? I expect to protest this endorsment and be listened to.
Thanks for the info.

Posted by: BillS at August 5, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #173490

I am still amazed at comments here that there is no difference between parties in spite of the recent situation where the Reps attempted to make the long overdue minimum wage increase dependant on yet another Paris Hilton tax break. Just how much more clear can the difference be?
I live in the SF area. Our liberal policies are working just fine ,thank you. We have broad living wage ordinances that have been working for a while now. SFis moving rapidly to an employer based universal healthcare situation for example. We also have a vibrant economy,great musieums,an improving school system, a good and improving transportation system,a great nitelife,clean air etc. There is also barely a Republican in sight. Thank God

Posted by: BillS at August 5, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #173492

037

Why do you hold the Democratic Party responsible for the infidelities of Bill Clinton?

Posted by: mark at August 5, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #173510

I do think some power needs to be stripped from the Republican party.
And, I W A S a Republican for 28 years (up until about 18 months ago).

This “In Party” has thoroughly demonstrated the dangers of one party having too much power.
But, the other party (when it was the “In Party”) also demonstrated that too.

But, what is equally clear now is that both parties have far too many irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, pandering, look-the-other-way, greedy, inflence peddlin’ , corrupt incumbent politicians.

Therefore, what voters really need to do is to simply stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians, regardless of party.

Keep the good ones.
Anyone know any?
I’m still waiting for someone to list 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible, don’t peddle influence, don’t resist common-sense, no-brainer reforms, don’t troll for big money donors, don’t carry the water for their big-money-donor puppeteers, and don’t look the other way.

What’s wrong with that?

Here is what we need for 2006. And, if they still don’t get the message, continue to do the one simple thing we were always supposed to do, always:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 5, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #173513

“And I would say the same thing if the parties were reversed.”

No, you wouldn’t.


“He got beat by another person in his same party and then lost his temper with this endorsement. Maybe “sore loser” is more appropriate”

Of course it would be too much trouble for you to even devote 2 neurons to fairly considering what McCloskey said, right? Maybe he has a point? Naaaah. Lets just attack him for not towing the party line. Much more fun.

Posted by: Observer at August 5, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #173517

Mark

Clinton perjured himself. That is an impeachable offense. I was happy with the outcome of the process. He got his hand slapped but remained in office. The party did not have the fortitude to do the right thing. They backed him to the hilt. As well, it says something about the party if they chose him to be the leader. I hold the Republicans responsible for choosing Bush to lead them. I am sure the Republicans would do the same, and they are, backing BushCo no matter how they disgrace the country. But right is right, wrong is wrong, regardless of party. They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I didn’t want to be lumped in with that group, even though I am sympathetic to much of their agenda. Hope this helps.


Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #173519

I think he has a point.

Too bad he doesn’t become and independent.

After all, parties are not the solution.

If they were, then why have neither done much more than fill their own pockets, peddle influence, pander, troll for big money, carry the water for their big-money-donors, vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises?

The real solution is much simpler, and politicians fear the day voters finally figure it out, and stop re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for politicians.

83% of all federal election contributions ($200 or larger) come from a mere 0.1% of the U.S. population.

How can the remaining 99% of the U.S. population compete with that?
Simple. Stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.

There are two classes in this country. One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to the sheople’s inability to mobilize through organization (such as merely not re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians).

Posted by: d.a.n at August 5, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #173532

d.a.n.
The problem, I believe, is systemic. For instance I generally vote Democrat based on family and job concerns. But I vote for my Republican cogressman because he has been around awhile and has seniority. He is chair of committees that directly effect the local economy. In short he brings home the pork! He is in a position allowing him to wield influence on behalf of our district. That is after all what we vote for, someone who will represent our interest in the gov’t. While I often disagree with his vote, I vote for him for a different reason than I vote for my senator. Thats a different issue. But, it is the very fact that he has been around that allows him to do this.
It is simple to say we the people have to get together and vote-the-bums-out. One mans bum is anothers butcher. We all have a different agenda, priorities and values.

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #173538

037, this is only partly whats wrong with your party, You are encouraging drug use and your folloing statement ask why your party is responsible for the actions of your elected official.lol you are joking right?!

KT the funniest thing I ever heard was a democrat like you questioning if bush 1 had balls and when you elected the Clint in office he did nothing but abuse his position for sex, what a wife to stay with him, do you think she was in it for the political possibilities…..lol
meanwhile acting is if nothing was wrong in the world and if he had a grain of balls as you put it he would have stood up to some of the middle east problems so we didnt get sacked on 9/11 or he could have not let some of the ugly hogs be so that N Korea didn’t get nukes or maybe had a hand in stopping hezbula from importing thousands of rockets since um I dont know they weren’t supposed to be a military and trying to start ww3, thank God we have a real leader that is strong with words and actions now because no matter how bad you dems try to make him look he is not willing to look the other way or throw money at our enemies to let them build up for future presidents to take care of a problem that has snowballed like clinton did and now the way bush2 is handling them. No you’d rather a president that makes things sound and look good so he can womanize and stain dresses instead of tackling the worlds problems. Your a disgrace to every man and woman who provided the freedom you have to air your convoluted oppinions, with their lives for this great country that is the beacon of freedom to many and has successfully freed other countries with real democratic values. Go to france, they dont appreciate what weve done for them either!

Posted by: Joe at August 5, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #173547
when you elected the Clint in office he did nothing but abuse his position for sex, … Your a disgrace to every man and woman who provided the freedom you have to air your convoluted oppinions, with their lives for this great country that is the beacon of freedom to many and has successfully freed other countries with real democratic values. Go to france, they dont appreciate what weve done for them either! Posted by: Joe at August 5, 2006 05:27 PM
Holy sh!t! Virgin anyone? Posted by: Dave1 at August 5, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #173551

037,

That is exactly how we program incumbent politicians to be irresponsible, corrupt, and look-the-other-way.

We are programming incumbent politicians to be corrupt by rewarding them for bad behavior, by continually re-electing them.

I see your argument, but what it demonstrates mostly is the selfishness and ignorance of the electorate. I’m not saying that with malice. It’s just the facts, and I’m guilty (in the past) of doing the very same thing. However, I won’t E V E R do it again. I have vowed to never vote for incumbent politician that has been irresponsible, corrupt, or looked the other way. So, none of my senators or representative or governor will get my vote in the coming election. I studied their voting records, and am very unhappy with their voting records. Especially Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

There are two classes in this country:

  • One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth.

  • The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization.

The voters are disadvantaged.

1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth.

0.1% of the U.S. population donates 83% of the billions ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in year 2000) to federal campaigns (all donations of $200 or more).

How can the remaining 99% of the U.S. population compete with that ?

No wonder government is FOR SALE. No wonder bought-and-paid-for politicians carry the water for their big-money-donor puppeteers.

But the fact is, voters are overlooking the one simple mechanism right under their very own noses to balance the power between government and The People (not merely shift power or strip all power from government to accomplish anything).

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

So, 037, I hear you and understand completely.
I can’t do that any more.
From now on, performance, integrity, honesty, and responsibility are what I’m looking for, and no politicians will ever get my vote to re-elect them if they fail in any of those categories.

And, since, in my opinion, most are corrupt, and very few truly embrace campaign finance reform, graft, pork-barrel, and looking the other way, it is unlikely A N Y politicians will be getting my vote to re-elect them for a very long time. I’d recommend others do the same, because we were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 5, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #173552

Joe

Now I finally understand how George W. Bush was elected and re-elected President.

Posted by: mark at August 5, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #173554
No you’d rather a president that makes things sound and look good so he can womanize and stain dresses instead of tackling the worlds problems. Your a disgrace to every man and woman who provided the freedom you have to air your convoluted oppinions, with their lives for this great country that is the beacon of freedom to many and has successfully freed other countries with real democratic values.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever read on watchblog. Clinton did more for this country than the last 5 Republican Presidents. Remember the Surplus… The Lowest Unemployment in 50 years… Booming Stock Market… Peace Talks between Israel and Palastine… Bush has undone everything this country has worked at since the 1960’s… destroyed unions… destroyed the economy… sent our jobs overseas… divided the nation… made enemies out of our allies… Stole both elections… Rewards the rich with tax breaks and burdens the middle class… ignores the poor… appoints his friends to positions with no qualifications… Is against stem cell research that may one day cure fatal diseases… Thinks he can talk to God and is trying to bring on the second coming by starting world war three. Need I go on?
You obviously listen to nothing but Rush Limpballs who once said “all drug abusers should be put to death” I say, lets grant Rush his wish and put him out of his limp dicked, pill popping misery.


Posted by: Pat at August 5, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #173556

mark,

I still don’t understand. Only 1/2 the people are less than average intelligence.

pat,

If truth will not be heard, was it said?— I heard the sound of one hand clapping in that 5:27 belfry.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 5, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #173557

“Clinton perjured himself. That is an impeachable offense.”

IN YOUR OPINION. There is no ‘list’ of impeachable offenses.
He was also aquitted by a republican majority.
As for how WE (democrats) viewed it, personally, I was very disapointed that he fell into the trap the right wing set for him. I was disapointed that he brought so much distraction on himself and our goals. No, I don’t think his “crime” was impeachable. THAT is why we stood behind him, not because we put party over country.

Posted by: Observer at August 5, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #173567

Dave1

In this case “less than average intelligence” sounds like quite a compliment.

Posted by: mark at August 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #173566

Dave1

In this case “less than average intelligence” sounds like quite a compliment.

Posted by: mark at August 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #173565

Dave1

In this case “less than average intelligence” sounds like quite a compliment.

Posted by: mark at August 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #173568

Wow! Could we ever get a democrat to do what is best for the nation? Maybe Ted or Cynthia could set the bar for the democrats.

Just curious….do Americans believe Washington REALLY will be any different if Dems take the Congress? I just don’t see any real change coming regardless of which party has control.

“Clinton did more for this country than the last 5 Republican Presidents.”

Pat,

Now that is REAL comic relief. The phrasing should be “more to this country”. Bill is the democratic Nixon and that will be his claim to immortality. His real accomplishments for me personally was watching my portfolio drop 30%, lowering respect of the Presidency 10 fold and sitting by while terrorist became strong and organized. Thanks Bill (from the crew of the USS Cole.}

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 5, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #173569

Observer,
Clinton was impeached. That is not an opinion. It is fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/starr-excerpt.htm

There is not a list but does High Crimes and Misdemeanores ring a bell?

He was aquitted. That does not mean the charges should not have been brough and justice seen through. Nobody is above the law.


Joe
you should stop posting your not doing your side any favors.

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #173570

d.a.n.

“That is exactly how we program incumbent politicians to be irresponsible, corrupt, and look-the-other-way.”

By voting for the ones who are successful advocates for our communities? Not sure I agree with that. I’m pretty sure thats what our fore fathers had in mind when they set up the system. If you read my post I mention voting for senators for different reasons etc etc etc

I am surprised that so many people are upset I left the party. Really I wasn’t mush of a help. And I promise not to teach anyone the secret handshake.

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #173571

Observer speaking of my opinion… Are you familiar with Jonathan Turley?
“I testified in the congressional hearings in favor of impeaching Clinton and thought that he should have been convicted for lying under oath.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-bush-spying-edit-no_x.htm

I guess i’m in good company with the Clinton thing.

Not exactly a legal or intellectual light weight.

Posted by: 037 at August 5, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #173576

mark,

I was being polite, sort of. Do you think he got it?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 5, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #173580
037 wrote: By voting for the ones who are successful advocates for our communities?

Are they really?
Are your congress persons really responsible?
Who are they?

Can you name 10, 20, 50, or even 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are:

  • Responsible?

  • That don’t look the other way?

  • That don’t fuel the partisan warfare?

  • That don’t vote on pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare (while our troops risk life and limb)?

  • That don’t vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$?

  • That don’t ignore our pressing problems?

  • That don’t troll for big-money-donors to feed the campaign war chests?

  • That don’t refuse campaign finance reform?

  • That don’t refuse a number of common-sense, no-brainier reforms?

  • That don’t give pardons to convicted felons (some who even pled guilty)?

  • That don’t pander and make promises that are fiscally irresponsible?

1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth.

1% of the U.S. population donates 83% of the billions ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in year 2000) to federal campaigns.

90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends them most.

Is that the kind of bought-and-paid-for government you want?

So, bringin’ home the pork-barrel is OK with you?
What state are you in?
My state may be getting more pork-barrel than yours.
Is that OK?
Why have any pork-barrel at all?

Hmmmmmm. Think about what you said above. Are we supposed to vote for the one that brings home the pork-barrel? Is that all it’s all about? If so, we have failed. Sorry, but there is something sad and fundamentally wrong with what you said. It reveals how bad the situation is. Many, like yourself, feel the same way. It was not supposed to be that way. Somewhere along the way, it went terribly wrong.

  • Never, were voters supposed to lazily pull the party lever, or vote strictly along the party line. That is how irresponsible incumbent politicians fool and control voters, by fueling the petty partisan warfare, while the nation falls apart right before our very eyes.
  • Never, were voters supposed to wallow in the petty partisan warfare. What good are parties if irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in both parties just take turns using and abusing everyone ?
  • Never, were voters supposed to empower the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that use and abuse us.
  • Never, were voters supposed to be so blinded by the petty partisan warfare, that they are oblivious to our serious problems as they grow in number and severity.
  • Never, was government supposed to be FOR-SALE, where too many bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians are too beholding to a few big-money puppeteers with vast wealth and power (instead of the voters).
  • Never, were voters supposed to ignore their government, as they do now, because that invites abuse and breeds corruption.

But, voters will eventually feel the consequences of their negligence and apathy someday, and they will only have themselves to thank for it, since they have the power right under their very own noses … the power to vote out irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, always.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 5, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #173587

Back to the original topic. McClosky has always been a thinking Republican, and an honest up front man.
He was retired from politics, but came back to run against Pombo because he was sickened by the man’s behavior, and felt someone should stand up.
The campaign was run just as he has described, with sleeze and dirt. It was exceptionally ugly.
Before you draw conclusions, you really ought to know something about the people involved.

McClosky isn’t running for the office now, but his behavior is consistant with the reason for his running in the first place. Lieberman in contrast, is talking about running as an independant, so it would seem that the issue is his own power.

I kind of wonder whether the official Dems support for Leiberman isn’t entirely based on a culture of Intra party support and that they might actually be relieved if he is tossed out. (That is, as long as Leiberman can be convinced not to petulantly become an Independant and a spoiler.)

Posted by: dana at August 6, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #173593

Mark, do you think you can stop jocking Dave long enough to not repeat the kiss as5 message 3x’s ya Dem nut rider. PS I didn’t vote for Bush last election and he still beat Kerry.

Speaking of flip flops 037 I’m glad your on the other side..France jr. and leave the starwars charactors out of comparisons dork, befor you compare youself to Vader who sold out all the jedi

Dave, God your stupid. “Ohh… Holy Sh!t,Vigin anyone” you sound like a reble rowser pedifile waiting to get caught. See help before you see your kids.

Christian Left, I can take a joke but nuking texes is over the top even for your terrorist party dont you thing, holy roler!

Dave professional help, we know you think you smart enough to handle it…but when you had to ask, do you think he got it. it sounded perverted.

Posted by: joe at August 6, 2006 4:01 AM
Comment #173598

d.a.n.
Dan you missed my point. I can only vote for one rep. And yes I feel he has been successfull at representing me. He is successful because he has been re-elected and has seniority. The problem is systemic. Term limits would put all House members on equal footing. I am all for that.

Posted by: 037 at August 6, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #173599

037,
Who is he?
What state and district are you in?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 6, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #173601

037

Your rational for re-electing your rep. sounds selfish and self-serving. Having someone in D.C. because they “bring home the bacon” might be good for your district but is it good for the country, the world?

Posted by: mark at August 6, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #173602

joe

You’re a riot, man. Ever thought about getting your own radio talk show? Keep up the “good” work. With bloggers like you who needs Rush.

Posted by: mark at August 6, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #173609

d.a.n.

My rep is Jim Walsh. Republican.

mark

That is a matter of perspective. Wouldn’t I vote Democrat if I was “selfish and self serving? I am after all a union member? I vote for Walsh because of the committees he chairs. We have two major military contractors in the area. He has secured contracts for both companies. If wanting as much as my tax dollars to come back to the local economy is selfish, so be it. I can live with that. Thats the way the game is played. We hire people to advocate for us. Should I blame him for doing a good job? They supposed to represent our interests. Come on guys this is civics 101. I didn’t like how he voted on the minimum wage/inheritance tax bill. But the two Democratic senators I voted for helped to killed it. I also like their stand on education. As I have said repeatedly the problem is systemic. That means the system is flawed not neccessarily the people in the system. Hence term limits etc.

Joe
If you bothered to read the posts you would know that I am not in a party and I vote a split ticket very often.

Posted by: 037 at August 6, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #173611
037 wrote: I feel your pain. I left the Democratic party after Bill Clinton wagged his finger in my face and said he “didn’t have sex with that woman.” Though I had him pegged for a liar at “I didn’t inhale”. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t offer anything better. They talk a good game but that is all it is….talk.

037,
You are right about that. That is why you may want to think about your following statement (below). Voting based on seniority and pork-barrel are not the best approach. If everyone votes like that (and too many do), what is the end result (nation-wide)?

Do you realize you are being bribed with your own money?

037 wrote: d.a.n. The problem, I believe, is systemic. For instance I generally vote Democrat based on family and job concerns. But I vote for my Republican cogressman because he has been around awhile and has seniority.

037,
Seniority? What happened to reasons like integrity, honesty, fairness ?

The bar is set so, so very low.

We have programmed politicians to be corrupt, and they have programmed us to empower them (by re-electing them). Politicians, now, will not reform themselves. They will not pass common-sense, no-brainer reforms that may reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their incumbency and cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power.

Only the voters can change it now, and that requires education to help us remember the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along: don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbents, ever.

Keep the good ones.
Do you know any?
Who are your senators and representative?
Why is it no one can name at least 268 (half of 535 in congress) responsible and honest incumbent politicians? Is it because they don’t exist? Whose fault is that? We keep re-electing them. We allow them to bribe us with our own money. Are the sheople really that stupid and selfish? Perhaps not all, but far too many, apparently. The sad fact of the matter is that the problem is ALL of us.

I used to also be part of the problem. I was a Republican for 28 years, up until about 18 months ago. It is embarrassing. It should not have taken that long. I admire those that figured it out much sooner.

The petty partisan warfare is powerfully seductive. Politicians love to fuel it. It is a wonderfully effective distraction. Whatever the distraction (partisan warfare, illegal immigration, gay marraige, religion, etc.), the goal is to create a circular pattern of thought and behavior to divide the voters, to distract the voters from more substantive issues being neglected by the incumbent politicians (cheaters), to prevent the voters from ever forming a majority to unseat the irresponsible incumbent politicians, and to prevent the voters seduced into the circular pattern from ever realizing or wanting to admit that they are being manipulated and bribed with their own money. I too was once seduced into that circular pattern of the deceit (petty partisan warfare). Parties are not the problem. Most (if not all) incumbent politicians in all parties are half the problem, and the other half of the problem is the larger population of voters that do not realize or want to believe they are being manipulated. Perceived self-gain fuels it. If self-gain is the goal, people must understand that their behavoir is actually destroying their chances for prosperity and freedom.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 6, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #173613

Pat:

Even the White House agrees with your assessment of Clinton; it says:

“During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country’s history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.”

Biogrphy of William J. Clinton

Posted by: Lynne at August 6, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #173617

dan

First. You tell me I’m right to leave the democrats over an issue of integrity then you tell me I am not considering integrity?

Second, I should not have used the term “pork”. I don’t believe in it. The government has certain legitimate expendatures. My district has several industries that provide sevices. The person we elect to go to congress is capable of informing the decision makers in government about these services that leads to money in our local economy that has been suffering for years. He is able to do this because the system rewards people who have been around awhile (many do think of seniority rights in any union/company)
This helps the local economy, which indirectly helps me. My primary responsibility is to provide for my family. Living in a community with a vibrant economy, based on local indusrty, which is providing services to the gov’t……

Simply put I didn’t vote for my congressman because he has seniority as you suggest. I voted for him because he is effective at representing me. May be selfish, (see primary responsibility- above)so be it. he is effective because he has seniority. Systemic problem (see systemic problem -above)

No d.a.n. I think I have thought about it… thanks for the conversation

Posted by: 037 at August 6, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #173618

037,

He’s not my Representative, but if he was, I’d have some problems with James T. “Jim” Walsh’s voting record …

Jim Walsh voted:

  • YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) (big mistake).

  • YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) (of course; Republicans want cheap labor; an under-paid, under-class to exploit, while driving down wages for Americans).

  • NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) (of course he did).

  • YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001) (to hell with Americans picking up the tab of $70 billion in net losses per year).

  • NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) (he helps to perpetuate the ponzi-scheme and plundering the surpluses; replacing surpluses with bonds)

  • YES on Prescription drug coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000) (there’s a good example of bribing the voters with their own money and fueling the sense of entitlement; I thought Republicans were for smaller government?)

  • YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) and voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001) (However, he is a hypocrite since he keeps accepting both, even trolling for big money donors); big drug interests have given $49,900 to Walsh. Big oil and gas industries have given Walsh $24,075. Any surprise? Walsh voted to give billions to businesses and the health care industry, while forcing seniors to accept annual increases in premiums and deductibles and a growing gap in coverage for the prescription drugs they buy. More government meddling and growing government to nightmare proportions.

  • YES for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries.

  • YES to allow federal loans to American companies that have escaped paying U.S. taxes by moving offshore. (This really tick me off).
  • YES to weaken House ethics rules when DeLay proposed doing so as GOP Majority Leader.

  • YES to allow the GOP House Leader to continue to serve after an indictment, an apparent tactic to protect DeLay. Voted with Tom DeLay 84% of the time (through 3/31/2006)

  • YES to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon’s own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor’s costs in Iraq were unreasonable.

  • NO to expand access to the military’s TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage. (he’d rather vote on pork-barrel while our troops risk life and limb; disgusting).

  • NO to protect the 1,861 water systems in 29 states have been contaminated with MTBE, exposing as many as 45 million Americans to this potential carcinogen; Walsh voted to protect the companies responsible from lawsuits by communities that need their help to clean up these systems.

And, IMO, don’t think much of his record on civil rights..

Whether you support those things or not, it clearly demonstrates the root of the problem. Either you support those things, or you did not know about them, or you did and don’t care?

Too many voters are overlooking the one simple mechanism right under their very own noses to balance the power between government and The People (not merely shift power or strip all power from government to accomplish anything).

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !

It won’t take that many to upset this cycle of corruption. Most elections are won only by a small margin. Just stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.
90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most.
83% of all federal campaign donatons ($200 an more) come from only a mere 0.1% of the U.$. population. Government should not be FOR SALE.
There are two classes in this country. One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth, and the other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization. The sheople continue to overlook the one simple mechanism right under their very own noses to balance the power between government and The People (not merely shift power or strip all power from government to accomplish anything).

Posted by: d.a.n at August 6, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #173619
037 wrote: d.a.n, First. You tell me I’m right to leave the democrats over an issue of integrity then you tell me I am not considering integrity?

I never said you should leave the Democratic party. Many times I have stated that parties are not the problem or solution. They both just take turns. The “In Party” is usually worse, by virtue of the majority and abused power. That’s very easy to show and both do it. When I said “you are right about that”, I was addressing your last sentence in the quoted section:

“They talk a good game but that is all it is. Talk.”

No d.a.n. I think I have thought about it… thanks for the conversation.
If you say so. Just something to think about. You’re welcome.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at August 6, 2006 12:12 PM
    Comment #173680

    —————d.a.n—————————-

    PLEASE! GIVE it a Rest-

    Posted by: DAVID at August 6, 2006 7:05 PM
    Comment #173728

    Joe:

    So if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are anti-american? Such a typical simpleton line of thinking from the Republican playbook. Got any ideas/thoughts of YOUR OWN? Didn’t think so.

    Posted by: Esther at August 6, 2006 11:44 PM
    Comment #173739

    ———————DAVID——————-
    No thanks. I’m not tired.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 12:44 AM
    Comment #173741
    Craig wrote: Republicans have screwed things up so bad I am more open than I have ever been to looking for a change. I can’t because you guys look like the bar scene on star wars.

    True. Not much of a choice.
    And, I think moderate is a good thing.
    Much better than extremism (usually).
    Do all these labels really mean that much?
    At least, on the things that matter?
    Like voting against campaign finance reform?
    Or ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL ?
    Or many common-sense, no-brainer reforms?

    If they all vote no on campaign finance reform, what label should they have ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 12:55 AM
    Comment #173748

    you anti american democrats may cut and run for fun but at least you get Barcley. He fits in well with the rest of you jerks

    Posted by: Joe at August 4, 2006 08:57 PM

    Opposing the “cult of ignornance” is not anti-American just extremely patriotic.

    Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at August 7, 2006 2:01 AM
    Comment #173757

    mark,

    It’s clear that Joe didn’t get it, but you’re right about the entertainment value. By the way, what is “jocking”? Is that supposed to be a reference to chickens with respiratory problems or electrocuting monkeys?

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 7, 2006 8:50 AM
    Comment #173758

    I’d have a lot more respect for this McCloskey guy if he had come to this grand revelation BEFORE he lost. He says ” I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents.”

    Now that he is not one of “those” Republican incumbents, he wants to fight against them. Why did he not fight against the issues when he had the power to do so?

    I agree with him that politicians are virtually criminals. I agree the system appears to be broken. I don’t agree that installing Dems into authority is the solution, and even McCloskey says that Dems would do essentially the same things that Reps have done, when given the power.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 7, 2006 8:50 AM
    Comment #173761

    Esther, ouch you answered your question speaking for me, thats just abusive. Is this really about my un-originality (Mark doesn’t think so). My point of veiw aside if you look at the same views the dems have with the terrorists you would think they were all the same group.

    Expat(mynuts)USA, if I mistake a keystroke harer and there thats life, this isn’t my job and I make no appologies for a mispelled name or word. Stay in Indonesia and keep supporting the largest terrorist part of the world cause they are your cult.

    037,point taken, you switch veiws so much your more like Lando then Vader. Thanks for clearing it all up, nerd.

    Posted by: Joe at August 7, 2006 9:00 AM
    Comment #173848

    Clearly, the Rules for Participation have been abdicated.

    This thread has been destroyed.

    Posted by: Chi Chi at August 7, 2006 3:41 PM
    Comment #173858

    Joe
    Please eliminate the personal attacks and just critique the message. I enjoy reading opposing points of view, but vitriolic personal attacks just ruin the whole debate.

    Regarding McClosky, I’ve done some reading about him, and he appears to be consistent in his desire to maintain personal honor. He’s someone I can respect. There are those on both sides that sicken me and those that I respect, so I’m not aiming criticism at republicans by singling him out with my support (i.e. by saying there are no other repubs worthy of respect).
    Joe Lieberman should put his constituents above power and accept what they are telling him. He hails from a liberal state, yet has become a DINO. It’s time for him to be replaced by a real democrat.

    Posted by: Cole at August 7, 2006 5:10 PM
    Comment #173880

    Is what Lieberman doing in the party’s best interest?

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 7:24 PM
    Comment #173978

    I’d sure like to know why “Joe” wasn’t chastised or even threatened to be chastised in this forum. Some time back, I made a joke, where I quoted the old SNL line of “X, you ignorant slut” (where the joke was known by everyone to be just a joke) and I was threatened that I would be barred from this forum for doing so.
    But this poster “Joe” has been doing so much worse, and he has not even been chastised for it.
    If the rules apply, then apply them. Otherwise, just make it known that any butthead can post whatever they want here and it won’t be noticed!
    Either enforce the dang rules or don’t!

    Posted by: Cole at August 8, 2006 4:17 AM
    Comment #174037

    Cole,

    Two guesses:
    1) The editor is on vacation
    2) The editor is letting “fools” show themselves for who they are.
    3) No one expects the Spanish Inquisition

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 12:39 PM
    Comment #174126

    Cole , when your right your right, If you look at the dialouge I never started on any of these Leftists and my responses came purely and specifically after those of your party started on me first. But my kindness and not weakness is about to take shap and show that even though I did enjoy the livelyness of it all I was just allowing myself to their level and possibly becoming a bigger monster after being attacked bythe inital monsters. So since I lost my good guy image I will not re-attack but I will only let someone go so far before the live - wire ignights the darker more entertaining porsona lurking inside. Im really a nice and likable guy 99.99 percent of the time. Thank for the head check, but prodders beware.

    Posted by: joe at August 8, 2006 9:54 PM
    Comment #174195

    joe,

    Thanks for the insight into the neocon mind:

    If you look at the dialouge I never started on any of these Leftists and my responses came purely and specifically after those of your party started on me first.
    Your first post was:
    you anti american democrats may cut and run for fun but at least you get Barcley. He fits in well with the rest of you jerks. Posted by: Joe at August 4, 2006 08:57 PM

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 10:33 AM
    Post a comment