January 05, 2006
Abramoff: Tip of the Ice Berg
Folks over at Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy created their organization knowing Abramoffs and DeLays were at work and that they represent only the tip of the ice berg in regard to bribing elected officials for votes in Congress and policy in the White House. Other organizations too, like Common Cause have been warning Americans of the scandals that would come as a result of our allowing our government to be sold to the highest bidder. But, it is crucial that Americans look past the Justice Department’s action, to the underlying problem: the relationship between lobbyists and politicians.
Yesterday, Newt Gingrich had something extremely valuable to say about this scandal. As Michael J. Sniffen, Associated Press Writer reports:
...Newt Gingrich cautioned Republicans they risk losing control of congressional majorities if they try to put all the blame on lobbyists.He is absolutely right. Lobbyist corruption in government requires willing politicians to take the money and accept the influence and expectations associated with it. One has to ask, why Pres. Bush and Speaker Hastert waited until after Abramoff turned state's evidence to announce they were donating Abramoff's "gifts" to them to charity. Is there any doubt they would have kept it had Abramoff NOT turned state's evidence?"You can't have a corrupt lobbyist unless you have a corrupt member (of Congress) or a corrupt staff. This was a team effort," Gingrich told a Rotary Club lunch in Washington on Wednesday...
Our laws regarding lobbying are themselves corrupt. Where in the Constitution does it say corporate entities, businesses, or unions should be entitled to lobby the nation's Congress with privileged access over individual American citizens? It doesn't. And this is the heart of the corruption. Regular adult Americans may lobby their Congresspersons by writing them a letter, or scheduling a visit to speak to their Representative. But, if a private citizen were to walk into a Congressperson's office and tell them, I need you to vote against the Patriot Act, and here is $69,000 to make it worth your while, the Congressperson would likely ask them to leave and call the FBI or Justice Department to report the incident. But, this is exactly the amount Abramoff sent to Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, in order to move legislation, and Dennis Hastert gladly accepted the money.
Only after the announcement that Abramoff was going to spill his guts to the Justice Department, did Hastert announce he was giving the amount of $69,000 to a charity. Now one has to ask, if Hastert had any remorse over taking the money from Abramoff, why did he wait until it was known his acceptance of this money so long ago, would be subject to scrutiny, before offering it to charity? One reason can be found in the fact that until DeLay's indictment last year, Hastert had conducted only 1 House Ethics meeting. Ethics were not a concern for Hastert, until he was implicated. Now, all of a sudden, the House Speaker is expressing concern over Congressional ethics. This is an extremely thin veiled sham by the Speaker of the House.
There will be dozens of Congresspersons implicated by Abramoff's testimony, and it is a good bet that Tom DeLay will be included, as if his money laundering indictments in the state of Texas weren't enough to cause him to resign. The fact is, this is very much like the Watergate scandal, in which politicians implicated are incensed by the thinking that, 'everyone else does it, so why am I being singled out'; a defense offered by Pres. Nixon in his abuse of executive power in spying on political opponents. But these men are charged with the responsibility for protecting and defending our Constitution and the laws that emanate from it. These are the very persons Americans vote to insure that government is not, and does not become, corrupt.
Below the water line of the Abramoff turning state's evidence plea bargain deal, is the vast volume of money which changes hands in Washington D.C. each year between special interests and politicians. And it takes many forms ranging from campaign contributions, donations to groups favored by politicians, and expensive vacations and trips sponsored by special interests under the guise of helping Congress person's become aware of issues near and dear to lobbyists pocketbooks. This vast berg of bribery amassed under the water line is a result of laws that permit access to politicians by wealthy special interests, magnitudes greater than the access afforded you or I as working non-wealthy Americans. And therein lies the heart of the issue and the spawning ground for this Abramoff scandal. It is appropriate lobbying for a spokesperson to visit a Congressperson with petition in hand containing thousands of citizen signatures. It should be illegal lobbying to visit a Congressperson asking for favor in one meeting, and in another handing the politician's campaign manager a check for thousands of dollars to their next campaign.
And make no mistake, this is not a Republican problem nor a Republican indictment. The money flows to where the power is, and Republicans are the majority power in Congress. This bribery has taken place just as fluidly toward Democrats when they were the majority party in Congress. So while many on the left will argue that it is Republican Congresspersons who are corrupt, the truth is, were Democrats currently the majority party, their members would now be standing in majority numbers as targets of the Justice Department, instead of Republicans.
To use this scandal to indict up two dozen Congresspersons for being caught does nothing to address the underlying problem; unequal access to politicians by the wealthy. Yet, the solution to permanently ending this source of government corruption is quite simple. Restrict lobbying access to a single spokesperson for groups and require that such spokespersons get in line with regular individual Americans to be heard, and finally, limit any and all contributions to politicians and candidates for office to an amount most working families could afford if they chose to contribute. The laws prohibiting a quid pro quo donation for vote, in other words a bribe for a vote, simply does not address nor constrain all the various means and ways of transferring wealth to politicians in exchange for favorable responses to the lobbyist.
The foxes are in charge of the Chicken House though. It will take a deep, widespread, and sustained public outcry to force politicians to make substantial changes in the law that will put a halt to this get rich, get reelected quick scheme, which Congress has created for itself. The outcry cannot just be in the media but, must occur at the polls in November of this year. To put it simply, the current incumbent politicians in Congress are responsible for this system which benefits them and subverts our democracy. The target of public indignation over this scandal must be incumbents. And the only way for us citizens to target them and hold them responsible for their actions is to vote for their challengers in 2006. With as many as 98% of incumbents reelected election after election, they have had nothing to fear from the voters, and no motivation to clean up corrupt government. Only when incumbents start losing reelection in large numbers, will their replacements in Congress be forced to change the laws and halt this corruption of our democracy.
Now you and I have lives to live, and cannot leave our jobs to put the pressure on Congress to change their ways. However, we can support those organizations which exist to do just that ethically; organizations like Common Cause and Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. As citizens, the greatest thing we can do to take responsibility for cleaning up our government so that it can represent us, is to join and support one of these organizations dedicated to restoring democracy and responsible government to the American people. Do it today. Visit their sites, become a dues paying member, and they will work everyday to insure Politicians hear your demand without the greasing of palms taking place as Abramoff has done. And register to vote, and go vote, for the challengers, NOT the incumbents who will fight the changes needing to take place.
Posted by David R. Remer at January 5, 2006 01:43 PMNo. The Democrats and the Republicans are not the same.
The system desperately needs fixing. I’m sure we agree about that. However, obeying the law and working within the system is acceptable behavior.
With the Abramoff scandal, Republican politicians have broken the law by the dozens. It goes far, in many directions, from Reprentatives and Senators right up to Bush. And it is a result of the Republican attitude towards government and business. It is a direct result of their philosophy.
No. It’s not Clinton’s fault. No. It’s not ok to break the law because everybody does it. No. As a party, and as a matter of political philosophy and attitude, Democrats are not the same as Repulicans.
Fix the system? Yes. But let’s be clear. The breaking of laws and the corruption fall on the Republican’s doorstep.
And among the most despicably corrupt administrations in US history, Grant & Harding are about to be joined by Bush.
Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2006 02:46 PMphx8, as has been very adequately pointed out elsewhere here on WB, the decades of reign by a Democratic majority has its own long list of political corruption and law breaking. Being unaware of history or choosing to ignore it, does not make your argument any stronger.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 5, 2006 02:57 PMI posted this in the LIB/DEM colomn… wondered what the response here would be…
—-
I had an idea last night. I think these issues represent some very bad patterns. 1 - they are getting more extreme and more blatant. 2 - these officials seemed very unconcerned about the consequences of their actions (oh well, just return the money and all’s forgiven.) AGHHH!
Here’s my suggestion: Let’s clean house. Let’s determine who within these scandles listed above are involved, and let’s pressure to have them removed. Here’s the trick - I’m from the left, so I don’t think the NRC will listen to me much. I have donated around $1000 to DNC (and others) so they might listen to me there. So, let’s clean our own houses. If you are on the left - you pressure people on the left. Same goes for people on the right.
I will trust people on both sides (here at least) to bring up names of representatives that need attention. No mater if you think are reasons or technicalities for them to avoid legal actions - the simple fact that they are facing issues means they have not lived up to our expectations. It’s not about legal convictions, it’s about derelection of duties - and it’s obviously on both sides.
Let’s work together by focusing our energies where they will be best accepted - in our own parties. Let’s peddle some of our own influence. Let’s make sure that our parties know that we expect the most from those who directly represent us.
Thoughts?
Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 04:04 PMAnd while the Reps give away the money they should have never taken in the first place, Rep. Kennedy (D-RI) was fouth on the list in accepting money and is keeping it.
Bribes work.
For both Reps and Dems.
Posted by: Jim T at January 5, 2006 04:07 PMThis is a scandal, but it won’t have much political legs because Dems have also taken a fair amount of money from this guy.
It is mostly Republicans (I read about 75/25) but that is mostly because Republicans were in power. And a lot of big name Dems were riding this gravy train.
It is profitable to lobby Congress because Congress interferes too much in the economy. If Congress had less pork and less regulating power, it would be a more honest place.
Jim, it seems that politicians who took money from him—or groups he’s associated with—are giving the money back because they don’t wan’t to be connected with him in any way (though it seems a little late for that). Not because there was necessarily anything illegal or corrupt, in any specific case, about their getting the money.
It’s not illegal to take campaign money from a lobbyist or interest group. And because Abramoff is guilty of improprieties doesn’t mean that every candidate who he ever wrote a check to is a criminal.
If Kennedy (D-RI) doesn’t give the money back, it may because it was given and used legitimately, and not as part of any bribe.
It seems only fair to keep the focus on money that was given in illegal exchange for political favors or enaction of policies.
I suspect that’s not what we’re going to be treated to, however, that instead we’re going to get a witch hunt where anybody with any financial connection to Abramoff—legal or illegal, honest or dishonest—is going to be tarred with the same brush. I worry that 90% of this is going to played out in the media instead of the courts.
Posted by: sanger at January 5, 2006 05:18 PMSanger -
I agree that many people who took money will be lumped in with the people who sold influence. One thing - I am extremely tired of giving these guys (Representatives) the benefit of the doubt. At some point you have to face the facts - if you’re feeding at the trough with pigs, you have little reason to be insulted when you’re called a sow.
Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 06:07 PMWell, I’m just as fed up with Congress, but giving the benefit of the doubt isn’t the same thing as turning a blind eye. We should never turn a blind eye—citizenship demands that we remain vigilant over our representatives.
But that doesn’t mean that you just assume that they’re ALL bad because that’s simply not true.
What if in your job, everybody just assumed you were a liar, cheat and thief just because they saw in the news that others of your profession had been in trouble?
In the Abramoff story, I suspect that something else will be in play—political posturing and stone-throwing without a full public accounting of the facts of the case. We already see this happening.
Posted by: sanger at January 5, 2006 06:22 PMLet us not forget that it is the In-For-Life Professionals in the Justice Department who spearheaded this Investigation. Whether or not Alberto Gonzalez will let them work is another question. This is the reason why I believe the media is important. The Press will protect these Investigators from the Bush Appointees.
Posted by: Aldous at January 5, 2006 07:33 PMI was watching the news tonight and they did just what I knew they would. They tried to make it look like the Republicans are the only one’s taking bribes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is this is a bipartisian deal.
Republicans do control both houses of congress, but the lobbist also need the votes of the Democrats to get their agenda passed.
Our Government has been for sale for so long that it’s going to take more than a new law sponsered by Libermen and McCain to fix. The only way to fix it is to vote ALL 535 member of congress out and replace them with either 3rd party or independant canidates that know that they’ll loose their jobs for this kind of crap.
In reading the comments posted here, I’m not suprised to see the usuall folks taking their party line. However if they’d take off the rose colored glasses they’ll see that this thing runs deeper than any one party. Bribery has been going on at least ever sense I first got interested in politics. And it has NO party lines.
LBJ was investigated concerning bribes. It was when I was just a kid and not paying politics much mind but if I remember it had something to do with Texas wheat. Maybe David could shed some light on it. Now the Republicans are going have to pay the fidler. But I don’t believe for one second that the Democrats aren’t involved. They’re just excaping the spot light. For now.
—-
But that doesn’t mean that you just assume that they’re ALL bad because that’s simply not true
—-
No - I agree that they are all not bad. There are a few that I think do a very good job, but compared to the power and influence that they are given, I say we must raise the bar. I see very few representatives functioning at the level I believe should expect from them.
Also, in many other highly ‘exposed’ positions, the appearance of wrong doing or impropriety is the same to the Board of Directors as a legal conviction. Not only must you act with ethics and integrity, but you must also avoid the appearance… for one simple reason, the public does not care about the legal, they care about what seems to be happening. Same should be true with politics - if you seem to be guilty, then you have been careful enough about who you associate with.
I’m not suggesting a whole-sale firing of every representative (although I think the attention voters would get would be fantastic) but I think we should be calling the shots and cleaning up our own houses. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen sooner if we actually decide to do something about it.
Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 08:06 PMBTW, I’m officially announcing that I am a canidate for President of The United States of America in 2008.
I’m only making two promises. The first one is, I’m only going to serve 4 years.
The second is, I’ll be the honest President yaall ever had. The reason for this is because I’m tell yaall right now that I’m going to get my share and retire wealthy enough that my great grandchildren won’t have to work.
Tony, there is a gigantic and unavoidable problem with saying that the very appearance of inpropriety is enough reason to condemn politicians—either individualy or collectively.
And that is this: anybody can make accusations and create a cloud of suspicion over anyone, for good reason or not. It makes little difference if it’s for actual ethical reasons—or for brazenly cynical partisan advantage.
Negative campaigning, directly or indirectly through innuendo in the media and through guilt by association is one of the best and most proven ways of bringing down political opponents.
It’s almost standard operating procedure to put your political opponents on the defensive for alleged ethics violations with the knowledge that it’s very hard to prove a negative and that a great many will believe the worst about people, proven or not.
If Mother Theresa was in Congress, you can bet that the person running against her would be glad to feed suggestions to the press to the effect that she was the Whore of Babylon. That while she was attending to lepers, she was also picking their pockets.
Where does this stop? Only with voters who pay attention to the facts, who weigh the actual evidence against accusations and come to informed decisions as a result.
If, as you say, “the appearance of wrong doing” should be considered the same as a legal conviction, then nobody, not even the most selfless public servents, will survive for even 5 seconds in the public eye.
Look at the facts. Weigh the facts. Base your choices accordingly. There is no shortcut or panacea to this duty of the citizenry.
Posted by: sanger at January 5, 2006 09:07 PMSanger, by all means, if you prefer to keep voting the status quo back into office, that’s great: that is your right as a citizen and exercising that right is a good thing.
But for you to condemn other citizen’s rationale for choosing how they decide their vote, smacks of intent to disenfranchise the opposition if possible. No one is requiring or even asking you to vote anti-incumbent. That option is directed toward those not satisfied with the current status of government and politics in America.
Tolerance for differences, Sanger; it seems to be in short supply by some, doesn’t it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 5, 2006 11:04 PMRon and Jack, I have to agree with sanger on this one. Bribery is a tricky charge to prove and not everyone who took Abramoff’s money was part of a quid-pro-quo deal.
Having said that, David (and Gingrich) is absolutely right that we need a massive overhaul of the campaign financing system.
I usually write my representatives — even the Republican one, (except that “Duke” Cunningham is in jail for taking bribes now, so that’s probably pointless) — about campaign finance reform every six months. This looks like another good time to shoot off a couple emails.
[Holy Crap! Did I just agree with sanger AND Gingrich!?]
Posted by: American Pundit at January 5, 2006 11:17 PMDavid, absolutely incredible. I am the one “condemning how other citizens decide their vote” when YOU are the one on this blanket and absolutist anti-incumbent warpath?
Absoutley incredible. Why is anybody an incumbent? Is it not because the majority of voters VOTED for them?
How are you missing this and trying to turn it around on somebody else and accuse them of a lack of “tolerance for difference” when your whole agenda here is to negate the choices that voters have made? Which have they made again and again?
Staggering.
All I just said is that voters should weigh the facts and vote accordingly. I find it incredible that you would have a problem with a call for a reasoned weighing of each candidate’s merits, for consideration, for voting conscience instead of blindly voting a program.
Or maybe I shouldn’t find it incredible, since what you’re suggesting is that people totally suspend and abandon their own judgement about the relative merits of opposing candidates and just vote for whoever—anybody, a Neo-Nazi even—on the mere basis that they are not an incumbent.
I look forward to hearing more about this troop of Angels from beyond this world who you apparently believe are going to supplant the current incumbents in government.
FYI, I hardly vote to put the status quo back into office. From from! I live in a Blue State after all, and the only person I’ve voted for over the last three years who has actually attained office (upticket and down) was George W Bush.
What I don’t understand is this:
If you’re sincere about ending the problems related to incumbency, then why do you pursue this hopeless and impossible notion that a majority of voters will vote out incumbents who they voted in in the first place, who in many cases they’ve been voting in for decades.
Kennedy? Byrd? Boxer? Feinstein? Hello?
Do you not realize how hopelessly doomed and unrealistic this idea of your this?
Please explain why you don’t just advocate the far more realistic notion of term limits?
Why don’t you just come out once and for all and advocate this platform of Newt Gingrich’s Contract of America from a decade ago?
Term limits for Congress. Get rid of the incumbents after they’ve served a short appointed term. I’m all for it. It has LONG been a Republican goal.
That MIGHT gain some traction with voters. So swallow hard and support it if you’re serious. Send a donation to the Republican party and make your voice heard. You’re a Republican on this issue, as much as you might hate the fact.
If you’re not serious, just keep heading toward that mirage about voting everybody out, but don’t be to surprised when nothing comes of it. As nothing will.
Posted by: sanger at January 5, 2006 11:51 PMIf it’s long been a Republican goal then why haven’t they given the Republican majority in the House and the Senate acted on it?
Or did I miss the legislation the past several years for them to do this?
It seems most of those that support the concept of term limits change their mind once they are elected.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 6, 2006 12:16 AMI’m opposed to both term limits and David’s plan (we went through that a while back). Both schemes are condescending and assume that American voters have nothing but a VOID between their ears.
And if that’s the case, why not just make voters subject to an intelligence test and bypass the “problem” altogether? :/
Or, we could help our fellow Americans become better informed and trust them to make a decision they believe is right — but that’s hard and uncertain work, isn’t it. Mechanical formulas and artificial limits to choice are so much more… efficient? I guess?
As for me, I’ll keep voting for the candidate who best represents me, incumbent or not. That’s my libertarian streak showing (again). Happy day! :)
Posted by: American Pundit at January 6, 2006 04:22 AMAP, thank you. Nothing unites Democrats and Republicans like a challenge to their respective parties or incumbents which have wrought this web of corruption for themselves.
I love it.
Sanger said: “How are you missing this and trying to turn it around on somebody else and accuse them of a lack of “tolerance for difference” when your whole agenda here is to negate the choices that voters have made? Which have they made again and again?”
Negating voter’s choices Sanger is overthrowing the government through revolution or imposing leaders whom the people have not chosen. I propose nothing of the kind, but, its interesting that you react on the defensive when I do propose that those voters who have not voted do so, and for challengers, instead of incumbents, and when I propose that those voters who are fed up with the status quo and corruption of the incumbents, consider voting for challengers.
There is nothing more democratic or patriotic that what I propose, Sanger. What is amazing is that you, as an American, can’t see that. No wonder our government and politics are in the mess that they are.
Sanger asked “If you’re sincere about ending the problems related to incumbency, then why do you pursue this hopeless and impossible notion that a majority of voters will vote out incumbents”
You truly do not understand what VOID proposes. See this article of Nov. 27, Power in Small Numbers. As you will see, we are not proposing and never have proposed that the majority of voters vote out incumbents. It only takes a couple million votes to accomplish VOID’s objectives to restore democracy of, by, and for the people. We don’t ask Democrats to not vote Democrat, we don’t ask Republicans to not vote Republican, if they believe they have the government they want. A Democrat can still vote Democrat when there is a primary and still vote anti-incumbent. Likewise for Republicans. Of course for 3rd parties, Independents, and previous non-voters, we highly recommend they vote, and vote against the incumbents.
I am a little surprised that you find such a simple concept so hard to grasp as evidenced by your continued misrepresentation of what VOID is all about.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2006 06:28 AMSometimes it takes an event like the Abramoff fiasco to wake people up. Personally, it is high time the congress had a big shake up. It’s ironic however to hear Gingrich (of GOPAC fame) talk about corruption.
I think the investigations will be a good thing. Perhaps it will drive some more transparency in the process.
Posted by: Dennis at January 6, 2006 06:38 AMLisa said to Sanger: “If it’s long been a Republican goal then why haven’t they given the Republican majority in the House and the Senate acted on it?”
Excellent question, Lisa. And the answer is as plain as day. Sanger is incorrect that it has been a Republican goal. Republicans control both houses and could pass this if they wanted to. It is not a Republican Party goal. Though it has been a goal of a few Republican and Democrat officials.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2006 09:24 AMIt’s kind of surprising to find intelligent people supporting such partisan politics. I was not discussing or promoting term-limits or anti-incumbent strategies - I’m talking about omitting assumptions for our political mindset. If you find yourself fighting to prove that your representative is not guilty – ask yourself who truly benefits from your efforts.
I am anti-assumption of guilt or innocence - I am pro-proving-that-you-deserve-the-power/job-you-have-been-given. If you are an exceptional candidate/representative, then by all means, please stay in DC. Right now, I do not see exceptional people in DC. I see status quo - I see blind ambition for power and money - I see reliance on party support as a shield from guilt.
I disagree with Sanger’s assumption that expecting more out of our representatives and holding them accountable for the appearance of guilt would be effected by negative politics. Negative politics exist now in the strongest manner I’ve ever seen - so it’s already in play with our politics. Changing our expectations does not impact this anymore than the blind support people seem so eager to dole out now.
I do not think that raising the bar hurts the people who vote, only the mediocre people in office now. If you can’t navigate the negative information against you in a campaign, the you are not qualified for the job. If you can not avoid contamination by association with bad people, then you are not qualified. If you can not impress us with your performance…
It is also not our job as American citizens to prove the innocence of our representatives - it’s our job to hold them accountable and to expect to be impressed - there are far too many exceptional people in this country to expect anything less. It’s is not our job to argue their short comings – it is their job to prove their worthiness to keep their jobs.
Posted by: tony at January 6, 2006 09:39 AMUPDATE: More evidence of this being just the tip of the ice berg: The Center for Public Integrity states in reporting on DeLay’s alleged illegal lobbying via campaign contributions:
At least 30 other current members of Congress accepted a total of $7.8 million in corporate donations to their non-federal leadership committees from 2000 to 2002, the study has found. These organizations then transferred a combined $3.5 million to national party committees, which later gave $14 million to candidates in state elections.
Here is how it worked in Texas:
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2006 11:26 AMThe Texas law is actually a very conservative law, that seeks to insure Texas politics are governed by local influences of Texas, and NOT national corporate interests. The Texas law tries to insure that if you are elected in Texas, that it was Texan’s money that got you elected, or the candidate’s party’s money, not China’s money, Bicardi’s money, the AFL-CIO’s money, or anyone else not residing in Texas or affiliated with the candidate’s party directly.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2006 11:36 AMDemocrats and Republicans are more alike than they aren’t.
Human nature is to seek security and prosperity with the least pain and effort.
Without sufficient laws and law enforcement, there is corruption.
The government is doing what all governments do, over time, without sufficient transparency and law enforcement.
The government continues to grow more and more corrupt. It’s just a simple fact of life. Once we all recognize that, we should recognize that reform is needed. But, we have a Catch-22. Government won’t ever reform itself. If left alone, it would eventually grow so corrupt, the people would revolt. But, that’s not what we want, and that could take a long time and be very painful.
Hence, the next logical step is if voters to simply do the one simple thing they should have been doing all along.
So, voters have some choices to make:
(1) Keep doing what we’ve been doing, support the status quo, and watch government grow increasingly corrupt, or
(2) VOTE only for a NON-incumbent candidate.
NO exceptions. Repeatedly, EVERY election,
UNTIL transparency and simplifications are
implemented to unravel the vast system of
clever over-complications ( designed to reduce transparency and facilitate corruption, and seduce the people into a circular pattern in which they can be controlled ), to finally reveal to voters which incumbent is ( or is not ) responsible, until things drastically
improve, and the nation’s top 10 most pressing problems are adequately addressed ( i.e. the nation’s most no-brainer, non-contentious, most serious problems ).
American Pundit, there’s nothing condescending about asking people to vote responsibly to remove corrupt government. Is that the best you can do? All you ever say is that it is condescending, simple minded, or just wrong. That’s just too lame. Give me some reasons not to vote out irresponsible government? Or, are you saying most of them are doing a fine job? You think Feinstein is doing a good job? Does any of this look like a good job? Do you like the status quo? What is your plan (if any) to make government more responsible and accountable?
American Pundit, whether you like it or not, there is historical prescedent for anti-incumbent voting in 1952-1958, 1976-1980, and 1992-1994. Voters, periodically get fed up and just start voting them all out. Government is always growing corrupt, and voters always get fed up. That’s simply the way it is. So, it’s probably going to happen again, whether you like it or not.
So, why not build up on that reality to improve it, and also suggest that voters keep doing it (unlike the once in a while approach they’ve been using)? And, demand some specific changes such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, TAX REFORM, lack of transparency, etc.?
And, recommend voters keep doing it until results are achieved?
What’s wrong with that ? I’m not buying your short and weak arguments that it is condescending, or simple minded. Especially when you propose nothing better.
Aren’t voters supposed to vote out irresponsible politicians ?
Isn’t that what voters were supposed to be doing all along ?
I agree that voting anti-incumbent is not enough by itself. Voters must also follow through with demands for transparency and law enforcement, lead to responsible and accountable government.
Again, I ask, what is wrong with that?
At any rate, I am voting non-incumbent for a long long time to come, until I have the transparency to know who is responsible and who isn’t (which would be greatly facilitated with ONE PURPOSE PER BILL), because that is the only way I can think of to peacefully force out irresponsible and corrupt government.
It makes perfect sense to me (and many others, as evidenced by past anti-incumbent elections).
And the more voters do it, the better off we’ll all be, as we oust irresponsible politicians, and elect people that will answer to the people, and not to their big-money-donor-puppeteers.
Eventually, Congress will get the message, or
have very short careers, and make it very difficult for their big-money-donor-puppeteers to know who to bet their money on.
And, all 3rd parties should be capitalizing on this growing anti-incumbent sentiment, because that will provide the voters with more choices, which voters badly need, and it will greatly improve government to oust the current bought-and-paid-for incumbents, since the two main parties just take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.
An interesting thing that is overlooked these days by many is that it is not as important who is elected to office, as it is that they are not bought-and-paid-for and controlled by a very few that abuse vast wealth to control government. Corporate welfare is rampant. That’s the problem we have now.
Government is FOR SALE.
Only 5% of the U.S. population has 60% of all wealth. 60% of the U.S. population only has 5% of all wealth.
Most Americans (tax payers) are being cheated.
Americans are only being provided a choice between one or two candidates that are both bought-and-paid-for.
And, pandering politicians bribe the people with the peoples’ own money. It’s not working. It’s bankrupting the nation. It is threatening the future and security of the nation. The incumbents do not deserve to stay in their cu$hy, coveted seats of power, and that’s the price they should pay for looking the other way.
Supporting the status quo is not working. The status quo is the foe.
I think thoughtful examination of the policies and previous actions of the candidates would go a lot father than blindly voting against any and every incumbent.
Posted by: mattLaw at January 7, 2006 07:11 PMMattlaw, voting anti-incumbent is for those who see the wisdom of putting pressure on politicians to clean up their act. There is nothing blind about it. It is democratic, wise, and prudent. For as long as the incumbency rate remains above 90% in every national election, politicians have no incentive to change their ways or restore representation of the people as opposed to lobbyists and wealthy special interests.
If voting anti-incumbent would make you blind, then by all means, vote this corruption back into office. Blind is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2006 05:00 AMIf voting anti-incumbent would make you blind, then by all means, vote this corruption back into office. Blind is in the eye of the beholder.
Note that I didn’t say a thing about the thoughtful consideration of a challenger. Perhaps the majority of those in office do need to go.
I think there should be term limits in Congress, personally. However, I don’t think an obviously poor candidate should be elected simply because we don’t want to elect any incumbents.
Posted by: mattLaw at January 8, 2006 02:51 PMOn balance, Matt, I don’t think voting in a few poor challengers while losing some bad incumbents poses much threat. However, if in removing a large number of status quo preserving incumbents we gain a few poor challengers, the nation will be significantly better off. Perfection is not achievable, improvement is, and improvement is what VOID and Common Cause seek.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2006 08:08 AMThere’s gambling in Casablanca? Round up the usual suspects.
It would not be surprising to find equal and opposite regulations and rules in the area of fund raising.
Posted by: Reporting for Doody at January 14, 2006 12:02 PM
Howdy, Doody. What do you mean when you say: “equal and opposite regulations and rules in the area of fund raising.”
The greeting kinda dates us both, doesn’t it. Howdy Doody hasn’t aired since the early 60’s as I recall.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2006 08:15 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
