20
Jun
I don’t know where this came from. I just love it!
20
Jun
This is embarrassing to more than the perp:
Now, my thought is Ravenel’s never going to be buddy-buddy with Rudy again. In fact, if I were Rudy, I might be just a bit vengeful over the embarrassment Ravanel had caused me. It’s not like Rudy’s supposed to be the hardest against drugs of all the candidates running. If Ravanel had teamed up with, let’s say someone like Marion Barry, no one would have cared if he had dipped into the campaign stash. Hell, he could have gotten stoned out of his mind, crashed his car into a bunch of non-suspecting innocent people, and the media would hardly have noticed. But, he’s not protected by the media. He’s your average white Republican millionaire. And, he’s hanging out with the perceived Republican presidential front runner. In other words, he’s EVERYTHING the Democrats and media are looking for all wrapped into one. So, he should have known he had to keep his nose clean ( bad pun intended ). What boggles me is this apparently occurred in 2005, the charges were just filed yesterday apparently. In other words, he had to have KNOWN he would have been an embarrassment to Rudy. He ran, and won, a statewide election KNOWING this was coming down. Bottom line, if I were Rudy, I wouldn’t be taking this too well. The media I doubt will take the angle that Rudy was fooled by the unscrupulous Thomas Ravenel. They’ll hang Rudy to dry for making yet another bad decision in who he chooses to hang out with. And, I doubt there’s much Rudy can say about it that the media will buy. So, for that reason, Thomas Ravenel is my political jerk of the day.
This one just boggles me.
OK, so in her effort to clean up the Republican Culture of Corruption, Nancy Pelosi is wanting to expand Congressional perks and hide the public’s ability to question earmarks. That’s just this week.
I honestly haven’t dug too deep into this issue. But, I got to wonder, will this include partners of the gay Representatives? What about significant others for those Representatives in open relationships? Pets?
I don’t think her request was too well thought out. However, I’m watching CNN and MSNBC for the rest of the story.
Author’s note: I thought I had the scoop on this since I read some really boring stuff, however, I was wrong:
Two friends of mine, Stormwarning and American Phoenix have posted similar feelings about Rudy Giuliani. Specifically, in regards to the perception Rudy has been accepted, if not endorsed, by the religious right. I don’t see this as what’s happening at all. If Rudy were a major player in the religious right’s choice of candidates, you wouldn’t see the almost desperate search for yet another conservative candidate, like Fred Thompson, occurring now. Fred’s not even announced he’s running and is already winning many polls. Something’s amiss. The Republicans are fielding several candidates that are very religious and uphold very conservative values, yet are getting no traction at all. The orneriest two candidates, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, have led the entire race. If Thompson gets in, I think the love affair will last only as long as it takes people to realize he’s not perfect either. So, now people are trashing Giuliani for not being something he never was and never claimed to be. Go figure.
Well, I have. This points to the root of the problems plaguing both parties in my opinion. Only in the last 25 years have conservative values been tied to religious values. In the past, being conservative only meant smaller, less intrusive government and laws. It had nothing to do with how religious a candidate was. Some of the nastiest people on Earth were elected based purely on their perceived ability to lead the country. We were pretty much constantly at war for fifty years and people wanted a leader to protect them and their values, not to be a poster boy for their religion. People held on to their religious values personally. They didn’t try to project their religious values on their government. The primary purpose of the government of the United States is to protect the welfare of the nation. People understood that then.
Now, for reasons I really don’t fully understand, people seem to be a lot less concerned about the welfare of the country than they are the personal example the President sets. George Bush has probably been the most outwardly religious President we’ve had in my lifetime. This very overt display of his religious preferences has created a certain amount of division within the United States. I’m quite sure it’s made some other non-Christian leaders and countries uncomfortable as well. 100 years from now, I think Bush will be a largely forgotten president because of him allowing his religion to dictate some of his decisions. I’m not terribly religious, so this aspect influencing a lot issues that affect my day-to-day life has been annoying. I think a lot of people have come to the same conclusion as well. Which leads me to my conclusion.
How can the person with the nastiest reputation of all the candidates running be leading the party that is supposed to be dominated by the religious right?
The answer is simple.
Because the Republican Party is truly NOT dominated by the religious right when it comes to elections on a national level. It never was. What happened was the religious right became very vocal during the Reagan presidency, and used the Reagan presidency to advance their agenda through politics. It wasn’t that there were a dominating number of Republican voters that were neo-cons, it was that the neo-cons were the ones chosen to be on Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, you name it. They became the face of the Republican Party. The rest of the body still wanted the person who could best protect the welfare of this country.
So, the assumption that Rudy Giuliani is winning right now because the religious right is selling out or being fooled is incorrect. The reason Giuliani is winning in my opinion is because most Republicans look for the person who can best protect this country. When you’re in a fist-fight, you don’t pick the preacher. You go with the guy that would kick the other guy in the nuts if he had to. The sooner he did that, the sooner the fight’s over. Then we can go back to arguing over who’s the most religious if we have nothing else to worry about.
And, I think there is a certain faction of old-time moderate Republicans that know that choosing Giuliani would announce the very overt and obvious death of the Neo-con revolution that subverted our Grand Old Party.
That’s all I have to say on this. Well, at least for now.
July 18, 2007 Update ( sorta ): James Joyner over at Outside the Beltway still doesn’t get why Mitt Romney, who’s currently running fourth in most polls, is the perceived winner by a LOT of media. This is my link to get his attention and fill him in.
Got this from Citizens Against Government Waste:
Dear Representative,
The new House leadership promised to bring to Washington, the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. The recent announcement by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) that earmarks will only appear in conference reports, and not in committee bills where they would be subject to challenges and amendments, shows that it is no longer business as usual in Washington it is far worse. Even the modest earmark reform passed in the 109th Congress that allowed members to challenge individual pork projects on the floor and require public disclosure of earmarks and their sponsors has been eviscerated.
Reforming the earmark process is NOT designing a procedure where members of Congress are denied the opportunity to debate the validity of an earmark and requesting a vote on whether it should remain in the legislation or not. Reforming the earmark process is NOT creating billion dollar ghost accounts where pork projects will be air-dropped in conference reports. Taxpayers have a right to understand where and how their tax dollars are being spent. In light of this, when you are considering the rules for each appropriations bill, a vote will be called to move the previous question. I ask that you vote no and allow earmark reform to be debated and voted on. By voting no, you will bring accountability to the earmark process. All votes on previous questions will be among the votes considered for CCAGWs 2007 Congressional Ratings.
Yeah buddy, I’m sure this will be all over CNN and MSNBC by tomorrow!
Trick question I know. It’s a tie.
From Rasmussen:
Surveys of 800 Likely Voters June 4-5, 2007 and June 6-7, 2007
This Week’s Favorability Ratings
- Harry Reid – 19%
- Scooter Libby – 19%
Actually it’s a double-trick question. Scooter Libby’s not elected.
And, I know a lot of people would suggest it’s a triple-trick question as there is no difference between the two.
12
Jun
In Texas, it is being debated whether the death penalty should be an option for certain child molestation cases.? I am assuming this will apply to the extreme cases.? I don’t really know that for sure tho.
I’m all for it.? Too many child molesters are victims of child molestation themself. Secondly, it’s a crime that can leave emotional scars for the life of the victim. Thirdly, abusing innocent kids unable to emotionally or physically defend themself is not a human quality we should condone. Sending out the message that this crime is as bad as murder might slow down some molestors. That to me, is worth it. In this age of DNA testing and the like, it’s fairly easy to get overwhelming evidence a crime has occurred. In these cases, I think death should be an option.
Tell me what you think.
Spent a little bit of the last hour or so mulling over someone mulling from the middle. In this case, it’s Kevin Sullivan. In this case, he really does seem to live in the middle. I REALLY like what he’s got to say and will be keeping an eye on his stuff.
11
Jun
Loved this one from realclearpolitics:
On the Republican side, Giuliani remains well out in front, but Romney and Thompson are both now in double-digits making it a basic three way tie for second place……
There is no second place in elections. You either win or not. There are all kinds of things you can add about losing a race, like getting experience for future races and all that, but the bottom line in regards to the race we’re looking at right now is the only person that goes to the dance is the winner.
11
Jun
I read an excellent comment on Outside the Beltway. I’d like to just post the whole thing here, but that’s discouraged. So, I’ll just lift the best part:
Perhaps naively, I still believe genuine corruption among Congressmen and other major officials in American politics is an aberration rather than routine. The people who aspire to and land in those high offices are mostly already quite successful and motivated by some combination of a genuine desire to serve, an interest in public policy, fame, and power. Money is likely low on the list; certainly, most could make more money elsewhere.
Still, the earmarking system is a classic case of the real crime is whats legal. Transparency should be the hallmark of the appropriations process and secret deals are anathema to that. The process brings suspicion on what I believe to be the lions share of Congressmen who at honorably. Its high time for serious reform.
I think James Joyner is dead-on. However, the perception problem has been compounded of late by SOME politicians pandering to the “all politicians are corrupt theme”. Mainly, of course, Nancy Pelosi and her culture of corruption theme when the Republicans were in charge. That may have bought her a few votes, but it damaged the reputation of Congress in general because although she painted it as a one way issue, it reminded voters of all the legal dancing Clinton did. And, now that Democrats are getting busted, the fact is obvious that neither party is immune. This now blatantly obvious pandering by Pelosi is biting her party in the butt right now. And, it’s going to get worse. You take a group of 535 people and your chances that none of them will succumb to the temptations of seeing a lot of money floating around won’t tempt a single one are nil. People steal from churches, boy scouts, grocery stores, Goodwill. You name it, someone will take it. Congressmen are people no different than anyone else. Some are financially stable, some not. It doesn’t really matter a whole lot because some want more than what they have no matter what they already have. Nancy was betting against insurmountable odds that of the nearly 300 people she lumped in her holier than thou clique, none would succumb. By doing that, she immediately excited the opposite party to keep a special eye out for those that do. When they do, they will be targeted with added vigor by those labeled by Pelosi as being corrupt because of their registration. So, I do see some ugliness where ugliness need not be. William Jefferson is this month’s poster boy for the Republicans, there will be another soon enough.
Secondly, although people rattle off a list of five to ten Congressmen that have gotten into trouble over the last few years, that’s from a list of several hundred. If all of our society could hold to that standard, our jails wouldn’t be crammed full. Fact is, Congress in large does set a higher standard of ethics than the society they were selected from. No one’s a saint, but by and large, they do abide by the laws. You just never hear about those. Ever.
Lastly, the system in place now encourages unethical practices. The problem we have now is very unethical practices are allowed, but then we expect them to abide within the laws. It’s sort of a catch-22. In order to get your word out in DC, you’re expected to accept certain things. Meals, mixers, whatever. It just can’t be cash. Well, it can be cash, but it has to go through a very methodical manner via donations to some PAC or 527. Then they can spend it. What Jefferson did legally wrong was he didn’t form a 527 or PAC to accept that money. That’s all. If he had, he could have been bought all day and night and no laws would have been broken. That’s why I have harped that if Nancy Pelosi were sincere in her political pandering to voters to clean up Washington, we would have seen something tangible. As yet, we haven’t . 527s, PACs, donations, speaking fees, they’re all as legal as they were before. Nothing has been introduced to curb their influence. So, it’s the same old hypocrisies. Nancy got what she wanted, now the issue’s dead and the if the next Congressman busted is a Republican, she’ll harp on the “culture of corruption” and the media will eat it up. If it’s a Democrat, especially if it’s a minority representing Democrat, they’ll harp it’s an anomaly, the vast right wing conspiracy, or the Republicans making them bad. And the core issues will get white-washed again.
