Speaker Pelosi's Ethics

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 5, 2007 | Editor

[yoe]

Ethics in politics is not the same as ethics in real life. Ethics in politics is a martial art. The biggest mistake you can make is thinking that the ethics package proposed by new Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mainly about "cleaning up" politics. Maybe. But it's first of all about cleaning the clocks of the Republicans.

The House Republicans got lazy. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, earmarks, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney. When Nancy Pelosi saw the Republicans had developed a compulsion to flagrantly throw their weight around, she grabbed them by the lapels of their Hickey Freeman suits, hoisted them into the air and slammed them onto the House floor, shrieking "the most corrupt Congress in history!" That's right. In history.

Ms. Pelosi started the long road to earning a black belt in political ethics (again, not to be confused with ethics as taught at, say, Aquinas College) back in 1987 by studying the Master -- Newt Gingrich. That was the year Nancy Pelosi entered the House as a California freshperson. And that was the year Newt Gingrich turned ethics into a weapon against the imperious Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, who left in disgrace two years later. "We currently have the least ethical speaker in the 20th Century," said Grandmaster Gingrich. Nancy noticed.

Aficionados of the sport of political ethics will recall another name from that era, Fernand St Germain, then the Democratic chairman of the House Banking Committee at the time of the infamous Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s, arguably the greatest source of congressional ethical lapses in, well, history....

[yoe]

[snip] "Exploiting this gain, Speaker Pelosi is breaking a champagne victory bottle over the hull of a new set of House ethics rules. If you stare at these rules awhile, eventually you notice that they are less about the members of Congress than about someone else. They are about the bad people who lead the innocent lambs of Congress astray. They are about "lobbyists" and "private interests" and, not least, "corporate jets," which for the modern member of Congress appear to be the rough equivalent of demon rum."

[Long Island Pete]

Anyone notice the mockery Keith Ellison made of his swearing in? The "Which hand do I place on the Koran" jocularity was a despicable act.

[mighty_righty]

"Government spending...rose steadily to 20% of GDP. The spending itself runs to nearly $3 trillion dollars. These large numbers -- a veil for uncounted agencies, regulatory bureaucracies and federal rules -- represent what conservatives sometimes call Leviathan."

Leviathan - A metaphor for the state, the Leviathan is described as an artificial person whose body is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathan's body. The head of the Leviathan is the sovereign. The Leviathan is constructed through contract by people in the state of nature in order to escape the horrors of this natural condition. The power of the Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another.

Hmmmm!

[IronJack]

Speaker Pelosi's Ethics

The Shortest Story Ever Told

[spintreebob]

Aficionados of the sport of political ethics

That's us freepers in Illinois, right? Where can more lessons be learned than here?

Corruption has been a bi-partisan sport ... like a ball game where both sides play for the bookie.

From '98 to '06 the good government, anti-corruption forces were dominated by conservatives with very few moderates or liberals calling for an end to corruption. In the Democrat primary, very few liberals had had enough. That was in stark contrast to the '60s when the good-government movement led by Republican Ogilvie was a truly equal partners coalition with liberals, moderates and conservatives campaigning for each other against the the corrupt in both parties.

But recently, there are indications that, yes, the liberals have had enough and are fed up. In November, while the conservatives stayed home and pouted to teach them a lesson (not clear who them is); the pro-choice, pro-gun-control liberals came out and voted for the conservative pro-life, pro-2d-amendment Republican Peraica.

Now, the liberal good government organization of Dem Lt Gov Pat Quinn is going public with their long standing, but suppressed, disgust with the corruption of the Dem Governor Blago.

It will be interesting to watch this act of the play. How many good government liberals will find the cajones to go public in 2007? How many opportunists will wait until the indictment is handed down before trying to posture with Pat Quinn for a plum position in his administration? How many opportunists will wait for the conviction before saying that they were for good government all along and quietly working behind the scenes.

Plan on watching and reading between the lines of the coming 3 Act Drama.

[randita]

During the Clinton presidency, we were told that "character" had nothing to do with personal morality, but referred to having the right stand on important issues.

I'm sure that "ethics" will end up being described the same way - at least as it refers to Democrats.

[MarkL]

"Exploiting this gain, Speaker Pelosi is breaking a champagne victory bottle over the hull of a new set of House ethics rules. If you stare at these rules awhile, eventually you notice that they are less about the members of Congress than about someone else. They are about the bad people who lead the innocent lambs of Congress astray. They are about "lobbyists" and "private interests" and, not least, "corporate jets," which for the modern member of Congress appear to be the rough equivalent of demon rum."

Which explains why it is that the "bribe-er" (in the case of the New Jersey Torch) is in prison for bribery, while the "Bribe-ee" (The Torch) is out and about!

Mark

[longun45]

The talk of ethics by politicians who we know have none is laughable. Clowns can change their makeup but they are still clowns.

The Politicians and the government have no stomach for true reform. Just like they have no stomach for enforcement of the immigration laws.

[R.W.Ratikal]

The Socialists are back in power. The U. S. Constitution and the Bible are not recognized by Socialists.

The real problem is that there is no political party able to successfully oppose the Democrat/Socialists. Republicans have proved to be weak and impotent.

We will now see an increase in spending; a distortion of the free market by additional government intervention such as increasing the mini mun wage; increasing income and all other taxes; opening the border even more than it is; increasing the size and reach of government and further eroding Constitutional protections.

This is what the American voters want, as shown by the support they have given to Democrats as they transitioned into the Socialist party.

There is still hope, but it is fading with the passing of each day the Socialists control Congress.

[savedbygrace]

He put his LEFT hand on the koran. Isn't the LEFT hand the one Muslims use to wipe with?

[upchuck]

Amazing that an entire article can be written about something which has never existed and never will.

[upchuck]

Yes. Yuck...

[ridesthemiles]

Speaker Pelosi's Ethics
The Shortest Story Ever Told"

Also: The Largest Oxymoron in Existance.

[BillyBoy]

Every grassroots Democrat I've talked to has told me they despie Toddler Stroger, so one wonders how he got elected. In any case, the fact pro-family, pro-life, pro-gun, Tony Percica did so much better in Crook County than "electable moderate" Judy Baar Topinka proves that voters DO NOT vote strictly on idelogy and instead vote based on leadership qualities. Peracia was a "reform" candidate whereas Judy was status quo, basically "vote for me because I'm slightly less corrupt than Rod".

If the ILGOP would simply stop shoving Friends of George (Ryan) down our throat for the top office, they could start being competative in Illinois again. Illinois is obviously more Democrat than it was 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean candidates who are pro-life and pro-family "can't win". (I have two Dems representing me in the state legislature and they more socially conservative than alot of so-called Republicans) It does mean we need the right kind of conservative to appeal to voters statewide.

Mark Kirk is part of the old RINO guard who got elected on the coattails of another RINO, and touts his "suburban agenda" as proof of his electablity. He is not "moderate", he is far to the left of the "average" voter on abortion and other social issues. Amazing how I'm in a much more Democrat area than him and NONE of the candidates out here need to be pro-abortion to "win". I'd love to ask Kirk at a public forum to explain why pro-life is such a losing issue when my "suburban area" does nothing but elect pro-lifers, including Congressman Lipinski.

The only good thing that could come out of this election is Pat Quinn replacing Blago as Governor. Even after Retzo, the odds that Blago will "be indicted" as a sitting Governor seem pretty slim to me, but perhaps we can find a way to force him out anyway and clear the way for Quinn. Pat Quinn is not conservative but he is anti-combine. A Quinn governorship would bring back honesty and integrity to the Governor's mansion and prevent Mike Madigan from installing little Lisa as Governor.

[spintreebob]

The lesson to be learned is pro-life conservatives should run. But they should not campaign "Vote for me because I am pro-life.

They should campaign saying "Vote for me because you and I agree on the issue you feel most strongly about. In Illinois, that means good govenment vs corruption for the winning candidate.

If the Oberweis "image" had been good government, anti-corruption, he probably would have won the primary. Instead, he, and especially his spokespeople, made anti-immigration his image. That split the conservative primary voter right down the middle. Some pro-immigration conservatives like me voted for Obie anyway.

But every time Obie's spokespeople blasted Brady/Gidwitz on immigration, it helped Brady. The anti-immigrant Brady/Gidwitz supporters did not abandon Brady on that issue. And many conservatives abandoned Obie on that issue.

The Parke-Crespo race certainly had immigration backlash overtones. Parke's campaign manager and asscoiates rant the primary anti-immigrant/anti-Froehlich because Froehlich had Hispanics in his organization. The anti-immigrant forces appeared mean-spirited and the suburban Republican... including conservatives ... wanted none of it. That anti-immigrant primary hurt Parke in November. The voters had developed that image that Parke was mean-spirited because his supporters were.

That doesn't mean an anti-immigrant candidate can't win. It just means he has to appeal to the pro-immigrant voters on other issues and not be a single issue candidate, and especially not mean-spirited in image.

[BillyBoy]

I agree with you there. Pro-life and anti-illegal immigration candidates CAN win, but CAN'T do so just by running ads say "vote for me because I'm pro-life and don't like illegals". John Cox and Jim Oberweis tried those tactics.

We can learn lessons here from people like Peter Roskam, who bucked the trend and won open seats in an election where the GOP was being thrown out nationally. Roskam was also pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, but he didn't just appeal to those constiuencies.

As you know, I am one of the anti-immigration who did not abandon Brady. I did not abandon Brady for the same reason Corrine Wood couldn't get all the "pro-choice Republicans" to vote for her over Jim Ryan & Pat O'Malley. I am not a single-issue voter. While I agreed with Oberweis more on immigration, I found Brady to be better overall.

Oberweis had an admireable campaign theme in 2006. He had the cute "Got Gov?" logo and ran as the "reform" candidate, pledging to stop Kjellander. The problem is Oberweis was not anti-Kjellander until 2006, his third campaign. Rauschenberger was all about anti-Kjellander in 2004 and Oberweis said nothing at the time. It shouldn't take three campaigns for Oberweis to realize the grassroots dislike Kjellander.

[BillyBoy]

The other flaw I see here is conservatives who insist on running a "I'm the only real conservative" in a campaign where other Republicans hold the same views. Mitt Romney is simular to Jim Oberweis in that Romney ran as pro-abortion, pro-gay in 1994 and flip-flopped on that and other issues. He can get away with "I'm the only real conservative" if his opponents are McCain (a backstabber) and Giuliani (a social liberal)

John Cox couldn't credibly say "I'm the only real conservative" in 2002 and 2004 because his opponents pledged equally conservative platforms. Instead, John Cox came off as arrogant and holier-than-thou. If his primary opponents had been Judy Biggert & Sid Mathesis, then an "I'm the only real conservative" message might reasonate with primary voters.

Mitt Romney's message will work if it comes down to him and Giuliani, but not if he's saying "I'm the only true conservative" and Duncan Hunter is his opposition.

[spintreebob]

I agree. And don't count out Newt.

Here in IL, a lot of conservative leaders are getting together tomorrow to talk about the Durbin 2008 campaign and who to run, if anyone, against it.

This is reminiscent of the Conservative Summit that chose Brady. The conservatives have always criticized the JimEdgar-JimThompson crowd for having a small, handpicked group annoint the candidates. It leaves a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Republicans that conservatives then try to do the same thing, both because it is the wrong way to do things, and because it makes the conservatives look hypocritical.

These types of efforts are inevitably doomed to failure. In the Conservative Summit that annointed Brady, some conservative leaders were intentionally not invited, or invited with only 9 hours notice. Even more conservative leaders were not invited because they were overlooked by the cliqueish conservatives who organized that Summit and think that they are the only conservatives that count.

No matter how hard the organizers of such an even try, it is impossible to include everyone. Thus, events like that one tomorrow are doomed to failure if they try to annoint anyone.

Furthermore, the conservatives who really care about winning and are available to do something on Saturday, should be working the streets of Arlington Hts tomorrow and not checking each other's navels in a circle.

[Kuksool]

{The lesson to be learned is pro-life conservatives should run. But they should not campaign "Vote for me because I am pro-life.}

Bingo! Il conservatvies need to learn from Henry Hyde. He appealed to people who did not hold the strong views as he had. He was affable and respected by people who disagreed with him. Even radicial feminists don't hate him as much as they hate Bush.

BTW Spintreebob, I am in the mist of year end financial reporting and working Saturday. I will see if I can make it to Arlington Heights on Sunday.

[TheRightGuy]

I'd love to ask Kirk at a public forum to explain why pro-life is such a losing issue when my "suburban area" does nothing but elect pro-lifers, including Congressman Lipinski.

Kirk will speaking, along with Tom Roesser, at the Republicans of Wheeling Twp. monthly meeting next Saturday morning at 8:30. I am sure you could get some face time with Kirk, although Ruth might not take too kindly to you embarrassing the congressman ... it's a committeeman thing.