Posted on 01/06/2006 8:18:11 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Cleaning House
Banish the Abramoff Republicans.
This week's plea agreement by "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new "lobbying reform" that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability.
Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.
This isn't to say we agree with the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions." That's true only if your "history" starts around 1994, after Jim Wright sold his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters, after Tony Coelho of "Honest Graft" fame, after Abscam, the Keating Five, Clark Clifford and BCCI, and any number of other famous episodes of Capitol Hill sleaze. Mr. Abramoff and his pals are stock Beltway characters. What's notable so far about this scandal is the wretchedness of the excess on display, as well as the fact that it involves self-styled "conservatives," who claimed to want to clean up Washington instead of cleaning up themselves. That some Republicans are just as corruptible as some Democrats won't surprise students of human nature. But it is an insult to the conservative voters who elected this class of Republicans and expected better.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Cleaning House : Banish the Abramoff tainted Government
There, much better - headline fixed
Lets do TERM LIMIT first.
can't - remember the Supreme's ruled "NO"
First they went after Rush, so he could be dismissed out of hand in this battle, then came Delay and Frist, and now the "Culture of Corruption" drums are beating in the Legacy Media.
Abramoff is one of the final stones in their little edifice.
He is, after, the ONLY crooked lobbyist in Washington... ;-)
Here are the 40 Dems Rush talked about yesterday:
http://www.gopsenators.com/hottopics/glasshouses_senate.aspx
Of course all of them will say, "I never talked to or even heard of the guy. It must have been a mistake! (Can I keep the money?)"
Abramoff represents the worst about corruption in American government and sedition or treason should be considered in his prosecution.
Lets do TERM LIMIT first.
Term limits then put the career gubmint bureaucrats in charge of the government and they aren't elected by anybody. The best term limit is to vote the rascals out of office. The US Constitution sets the terms for Congressmen and Senators, it would need to be amended to change that.
Unfortunately, from my little knowledge most politicians have little time to investigate every contributor. Generally it is left up to the committee. The catch is if a politician knows the contributor and does in fact try to influence anything for a favor to that contributor, then hang him.
Election 2006 is really shaping up to be a choice for the American people between: throwing out the bums v. replacing them with the kooks. The dems are relying on this "culture of corruption" mantra to carry them into power. It may well if the Republicans fail to do something about it. Perhaps cleaning out a few high profile names is a good START.
If the dems actually presented the American people with reasonable policy alternatives, this election would indeed be over right now. If there is one thing the voters can't stand, its corruption or the appearance of it. Thankfully, the dems are keeping the Republicans afloat to fight another day by being absolutely out of touch with the American voter on the issues that matter the most. To wit, the dems are offering to: 1)stop the POTUS from taking the necessary steps to defend the country by suddenly making illegal that (tapping certain phone calls) which was deemed perfectly legal during the Clinton and Carter administrations (something 60% of Americans support); 2) withdraw from Iraq today, now, handing the terrorists a victory; 3) appease Iran and other terrorist countries by turning our foreign policy over to the UN; 4)raise taxes and nationalize healthcare; 4)just be peachy on social issues by doing things such as legalize gay marriage; and 5) promise to impeach Bush if elected (instability, just what the American people and the economy crave).
None of these positions are popular and none of them will win one vote. If the Republicans were able to defang the corruption charges by actually, gulp, doing the right thing and ending it or, at least starting with some high profile heads, they would put away this election hands down.
Makes sense. Good post.
It won't be. The Democrats will be required to do nothing but give (reluctantly, as with them) a little cash to charity. It will all be blamed on Republicans, according to the "mainstream media."
Bumped and Bookmarked
That's the key, who did what for Abramoff. If you notice, the politicians who took the most money, were from states with prominent Indian gambling issues. We need to examine how the legisltors voted on those issues. I read that Tom Delay voted against the Republican sponsored bill on gambling, but I have no idea if that was pro or con Abramoff.
Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell both received large sums, and Indian gambling was indeed a big issue in WA state.
What about jFk in mASSachusetts? Is there gambling there?
These guys, on both sides of the aisle, always go for the same stunt - "stronger laws". I wonder how far I'd get arguing to a judge that I only broke the law because "it wasn't strong enough". The general public will only hear about crooked conservatives, though, as the MSM greases the skids for the lefties.
I'm not sure about the gambling issues in Massachusetts. I think that the big casino is in Connecticut, but it could be that was an attempt to build one in Mass. A lot of the money went to stop any competing casinos from being built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.