Dems and their special interest groups

[Smurf-Herder]

The Farm Lobby


"As Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton toured the land denouncing special interests, giveaways to the rich, home foreclosures, job losses and a middle-class squeeze, back in Washington House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats met behind closed doors on a plan to raise taxes and cut food stamp money to protect billions of dollars for agribusiness, a sector of the economy that is booming.

"The idea that we're going to raise taxes at a time of rising energy prices, rising food prices, a housing crisis, on the eve of a recession, to give unlimited subsidies to millionaires is absolutely disgusting," said Scott Faber, head of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "It just defies logic. ... I can't imagine why Democrats and Republicans of conscience aren't screaming from the highest rooftops."

"Probable Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., co-sponsored the Lugar-Lautenberg reform and the payment limit, but missed the votes. The payment limit won 56-43 in the Senate, but failed because Reid required it to get 60 votes to pass. The tactic allowed Democrats to avoid an embarrassing filibuster by their own, Democratic Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who sought to shield the Arkansas rice industry.

"Our Democratic candidates are talking about change and standing up to special interests and you have a Democratic-controlled Congress that apparently is unwilling to tell the farm lobby 'no" on anything," said Hopper."

The entire article from the San Franciso Chronicle is here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/MNMOV5QB7.DTL&type=politics

[Smurf-Herder]

The Trial Lawyers

"Fortunately, the Protect America Act overturned this ruling and restored FISA's original limits to apply to domestic surveillance. Additionally, the Protect America Act specifically authorized American telecommunications firms to assist our nation's intelligence-gathering entities.

After initially claiming that the bill needed more safeguards for surveillance suspects — including the likes of convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid and September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to prevent their calls and activities from being monitored and abused by the federal government — Democratic critics of international wiretapping and electronic surveillance have backed down. Now Democrats claim they are worried about the immunity provisions that will end the cascade of lawsuits against telecommunication firms like AT&T and Verizon.

Unfortunately, the new effort the Democrats are pursuing doesn't provide telecom firms with any greater political cover, especially since it appears to be a result of a misplaced political parochialism. Press reports indicate that the 66 trial lawyers suing the telecommunications companies have given a combined $1.5 million in campaign contributions to congressional Democrats. And it's those very same lawyers who want the Protect America Act to lapse permanently — just so their cases can continue."

Full article from the Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/EDITORIAL/190517686

[Smurf-Herder]

I don't plan on debating these issues in detail here, btw.

Seeing constant attacks on the Republicans on this board, at every chance somebody can get, my point in starting this thread was to show that the Democrats are no angels; even though most of you give them a free pass on everything.

[Bill]

Sounds about right.

The dems are just as much in thrall to the corps and the rich as the republicans. That's never been disputable.

I could add quite a few to that list.

---

It's a shame the republicans started this business of mean-spirited war to the knife. But they did.

There aren't and never were dozens and dozens of dem hate jocks filling the airwaves and the media. The dems didn't want to go this negative. They are still not that skilled at it - the republicans had thirty years head start.

The republicans wanted to, and did. The dems have to master this kind of fighting in order to survive. And that's the world we live in now.

It will probably be that way for a while. It will take decades to heal from this.

---

So, who do you figure are the special interests pulling republican strings?

---

What I think is interesting are the masters who play both sides. They're the biggest threat.

[Moby]

of rising energy prices, rising food prices, a housing crisis, on the eve of a recession
This is the part that gets me. Republicans are screaming that the dems aren't going to make it better but it was the republicans that caused this mess. They looked the other way when there own party of hate was doing this and now they're bitching about it.

[Smurf-Herder]

Why is it, I knew from the start this topic would be twisted around to the Republicans? .... and by the moderators themselves, no less.

This thread was started to give some balance, to the daily multiple Republican attacks.

But I guess that's impossible with the prevailing mindset around here.

[Bill]

SH, like I tried to say, I wish it didn't have to be this way.

When I first started writing here, I didn't think I'd have to go negative.

I still wish that I didn't.

I find it very painful.

[bigfootzx]

Dems mods on this board twist the truth in their favor because they are biased and choose to forget past scandals that Dems started or failed to regulate with new policies designed to protect consumers. I will attack mods and others who blame one party only and choose to pretend Dems did not have role in the issue too. I'll never stand with one party because both parties lose respect and turn a blind eye to the people in favor of special interests. Anyone who thinks the Dems will swear off special interests must have a cystal ball. Sounds more like smoke and mirrors to gain sucker votes!!

The blind ignorant one sided approach is all what Washington is about as is some of the posts on this board. The mortgage crisis is a prime example of "blame only Bush" when clearly the problem developed long beforehand. Both parties need to be responsible to the people but instead it is business as usual. If you are going to go negative on one party get ready for more pain. Both parties are famous for looking the other way, it is a matter of public record.

[Bill]

The blind ignorant one sided approach is all what Washington is about as is some of the posts on this board. The mortgage crisis is a prime example of "blame only Bush" when clearly the problem developed long beforehand. .

The red position that Bush is entirely blameless for anything and everything, forces blues to heap blame on Bush.

How does Bush not deserve blame for the housing and credit crisis again?

I'm not sure I've heard this story.

[LogicallyYours]

The state of this current is a direct cause of the policies of the Republican administration who conceived this poorly planned war; mislead the Congress and the people by cherry-picking intell to support their fantasies.

Yes, and while the Democrats voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq as a last resort, based on the misinformation they fed, to say both parties share equally in this fiasco, is intellectually dishonest.

[Smurf-Herder]

The red position that Bush is entirely blameless for anything and everything, forces blues to heap blame on Bush.

How does Bush not deserve blame for the housing and credit crisis again?

I'm not sure I've heard this story.


This should be interesting to see.. .. I'll have to check it out when I get back, later on.

I believe the specific thing you bring up was specifically addressed in great detail in another thread, last week. :hi:

[Smurf-Herder]

SH, like I tried to say, I wish it didn't have to be this way.

When I first started writing here, I didn't think I'd have to go negative.

I still wish that I didn't.

I find it very painful.

That isn't the issue.

This was about Democrats; and one's ability to not turn a blind eye to their shenanigans. Nothing about defending Republicans in any way. There's enough of that in other threads.

This was to see who could actually bring themselves to accept criticism related to the other party; without having to resort to attacking the Republicans, in a reactionary way.

[bigfootzx]

The red position that Bush is entirely blameless for anything and everything, forces blues to heap blame on Bush.

How does Bush not deserve blame for the housing and credit crisis again?

I'm not sure I've heard this story.

If you had read my other posts then you would know Bush is responsible as is Clinton for failing to control the mortgage bubble. Who cares what the Red or Blue position is??? Both groups are responsible if you are honest with the history of the root causes of the problems and how long they have persisted! Clearly you mis-interpreted my post, easy to un-do. Blame only Bush, I was suggesting he was not the only person to blame. Why is it this website only focuses on the whitehouse?? Clearly the legislature is a major cesspool!!

[QUOTE=bigfootzx]Liars and sins in the state of Bush & Co. The Free Markets system are too free for some and a financial pain for many mortgage holders. The bubble economy has continued for over a decade and no one cares to hold our leaders and executive accountable to the same standards that the people are held to.

Request a mortgage loan and lie and you will go to jail if the bank files a complaint, if the bank executives lie, we call that business as usual. The status quo lives free atop the corporate empire and makes a mochery of the way the majority of companies are run. Ethical versus unethical. And the Pinheads on TV give them venue to blame the people.

We lost the median income growth from the tech/internet scandal on through 9/11 to the mortgage and energy bubble today, it was and still is a gradual decline. I remember seeing Larry Kudlow on CNBC in the late 1990's saying there is no mortgage crisis looming the real estate market is growing strong. All the talking heads were fodder for corrupt business practices. I blame Bush more than Clinton, yet both men had the power to make gradual changes in policy to curtail questionable mortgage industry practices.

If nothing else the last 16 years we should have learned that when Academic Scholars and independent researchers say there is a problem and wall street, the whitehouse and big business say the opposite, we need to listen closer to academic research and independent research over all others.

I can blame either side or both and sleep well at night because I'm not afraid of taking the issue beyond the current administration. Both parties have lost their way.

[LogicallyYours]

Morally, I don't know if the US can just withdraw from Iraq. That's my dilemma. While I know and believe we need to get out of there, I also know we deposed a countries leader, de-stabilized that country and are directly responsible for the current civil war and bloodshed.

The next President have the moral dilemma of the century.

[Bill]

That isn't the issue.

This was about Democrats; and one's ability to not turn a blind eye to their shenanigans. Nothing about defending Republicans in any way. There's enough of that in other threads.

This was to see who could actually bring themselves to accept criticism related to the other party; without having to resort to attacking the Republicans, in a reactionary way.

Can you give examples of "turning a blind eye"?

I know I've said many times the dems are just as much in thrall to the corporations and rich as the republicans. Many many many times.

---

Again, I'll refer you to my argument that the republicans started it.

So, doesn't "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" apply?

[Bill]

If nothing else the last 16 years we should have learned that when Academic Scholars and independent researchers say there is a problem and wall street, the whitehouse and big business say the opposite, we need to listen closer to academic research and independent research over all others..

That's true enough, and closely matches my own position.

Altho, I suspect my list of trustworthy researchers and yours wouldn't be the same.

---

We discuss the whitehouse here because the whitehouse plays a massive role, and because a hugely important election is happening this year.

And I agree, all of congress bears the blame for the housing and credit crisis.

But, we live with a binary political system. You have two choices, blue and red. We don't have the power to remove all of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at once, and start over.

This causes all debates to follow a simplified blue vs red formula.

You are either blue, or red. No other choices apply.

I didn't make things this way, but that's the way they are.

---

Oddly enough, whenever I see someone saying "everyone is to blame", they always seem to spend most of their time bashing the democrats.

[bigfootzx]

That's true enough, and closely matches my own position.

Altho, I suspect my list of trustworthy researchers and yours wouldn't be the same.

---

We discuss the whitehouse here because the whitehouse plays a massive role, and because a hugely important election is happening this year.

And I agree, all of congress bears the blame for the housing and credit crisis.

But, we live with a binary political system. You have two choices, blue and red. We don't have the power to remove all of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at once, and start over.

This causes all debates to follow a simplified blue vs red formula.

You are either blue, or red. No other choices apply.

I didn't make things this way, but that's the way they are.

---

Oddly enough, whenever I see someone saying "everyone is to blame", they always seem to spend most of their time bashing the democrats.

Wrong we all have the choice to be neither blue or red.

I'm red white and blue!! I take a stand for the people!! While the rest live on one side of politics and think their party has all the right answers and turns a blind eye to the people in favor of corporations. The corporations are not our salvation. Active and reactive changes in policy would have curtailed/controlled aggressive free market practices in the mortgage industry or any industry.

As for "trustworthy researchers" avoid too much industry biased research and you'll do okay. Independent research is what we use to change policy and perspective on a run away train. I'm not against someone owning a home but many of the loan failures are based on selling a mortgage the same way car dealers push autos out the door.

[Smurf-Herder]

Can you give examples of "turning a blind eye"?

I know I've said many times the dems are just as much in thrall to the corporations and rich as the republicans. Many many many times.

---

Again, I'll refer you to my argument that the republicans started it.

So, doesn't "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" apply?


That's why I started this thread - answering your last question.

And I wasn't referring to your blind eye, specifically. It was a general statement on the intent of this thread.

It's not my fault your response was exactly what I expected to see; on the more moderate side. Now you're just being defensive. If you don't feel like actually talking about the democrats, don't. You're an administrator. You don't have to comment.

But if you do, the topic is opinions on what the Democrats are doing. I'm mostly here just to watch. :D

[Smurf-Herder]

That's true enough, and closely matches my own position.

Altho, I suspect my list of trustworthy researchers and yours wouldn't be the same.

---

We discuss the whitehouse here because the whitehouse plays a massive role, and because a hugely important election is happening this year.

And I agree, all of congress bears the blame for the housing and credit crisis.

But, we live with a binary political system. You have two choices, blue and red. We don't have the power to remove all of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at once, and start over.

This causes all debates to follow a simplified blue vs red formula.

You are either blue, or red. No other choices apply.

I didn't make things this way, but that's the way they are.

---

Oddly enough, whenever I see someone saying "everyone is to blame", they always seem to spend most of their time bashing the democrats.

Good-cop / Bad-cop

Keep that in mind, Bill.

Don't jump everytime you hear the bell ring.

[Moby]

Why is it, I knew from the start this topic would be twisted around to the Republicans? .... and by the moderators themselves, no less.

This thread was started to give some balance, to the daily multiple Republican attacks.

But I guess that's impossible with the prevailing mindset around here.
Actually I wasn't trying to twist it to politicians or political policies in any way. I'm trying to point out a major flaw in the mind set of voters that has to be changed if we want our country to be a leader for the next generation.

Bitching about this 6 years ago and bitching about it now is appropriate. Ignoring it for 6 years and bitching about it now is exactly why we're fucked.

[bigfootzx]

The state of this current is a direct cause of the policies of the Republican administration who conceived this poorly planned war; mislead the Congress and the people by cherry-picking intell to support their fantasies.

Yes, and while the Democrats voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq as a last resort, based on the misinformation they fed, to say both parties share equally in this fiasco, is intellectually dishonest.

Wrong both parties have access to the same information on Iraq and both parties have independent sources as well as the ability to communicate with other countries and rely on intel from abraod. Both parties share equally!! If the Dems did not believe the intel why vote, its not like they were forced to vote in favor of war now was it??

We need to phase in Iraqi troops now and bring home 30% before the end of the year. If Obama wins and brings everyone home right away, there will be hell to pay in Iraq for a long time. Regardeless of how we got there, we need to finish the job and hand off the responsibility to the govt. of Iraq. If we leave to soon, odds are we will end up going back again, next time will be to stop the genocide.

Plenty of blame to spread around. Fact is all the politicians who say "I didn't vote for that war" are simply repeating the same message to gain political clout from the people. It is a useful tool to garner support with such messages, though misleading and twisted, such messages work. Yet Dems in Congress funded the war again and again. Regardless of WMD's the humantarian effort will benefit Iraq.

[Moby]

Wrong both parties have access to the same information on Iraq and both parties have independent sources as well as the ability to communicate with other countries and rely on intel from abraod. Both parties share equally!! If the Dems did not believe the intel why vote, its not like they were forced to vote in favor of war now was it??
That's not really how it works.

There are a lot of meetings that take place in the Oval Office. Some classified material can only be viewed in 2 places. One is NSA head quarters and the other is the Oval Office. While some Senators can gain access to the information at NSA head quarters they may not know that the information exists and even if they do it's quite a difficult and uncomfortable process. They might have to spend all day jumping through hoops just to see a report even if they know it exists.

The President gets a lot of information that congress does not. Yes, the President can invite members of congress to the Oval Office and past Presidents did invite members of both parties. This President does not do that.

[bigfootzx]

That's not really how it works.

There are a lot of meetings that take place in the Oval Office. Some classified material can only be viewed in 2 places. One is NSA head quarters and the other is the Oval Office. While some Senators can gain access to the information at NSA head quarters they may not know that the information exists and even if they do it's quite a difficult and uncomfortable process. They might have to spend all day jumping through hoops just to see a report even if they know it exists.

The President gets a lot of information that congress does not. Yes, the President can invite members of congress to the Oval Office and past Presidents did invite members of both parties. This President does not do that.

I know, but the legislature has independent sources as well as the ability to request documents from the whitehouse. The whitehouse had to share intelliegence to garner support for the war. I have not seen proof that congress did not request documents. Sources at the pentagon can produce summaries based on the intelliegence gathered, if there were discrepancies between the summaries and the hard data, someone would have found it by now. I have not seen proof that members of both parties not invited to the whitehouse to view documents either, proof from hate groups and websites that talk as if they have a clue. You also have to remember afterthefact, going into elections, politicians are not honest about a war they voted for that has become an intelliegence embarrassment. Easy to lie to garner more votes for Dems.

We would see democrats working in intelliegence agencies leaking details that the call to war is being fabricated. Dems in various agencies would go public and suggest that the data the president is using for the call to war is not identical to what they have seen. They don't have to be specific, all they have to do is suggest there might be a problem and someone should look into it. Which would in turn give cause for Dems to say we need more details or we need to open these documents in private and investigate further.

We made a mistake and the legislature is responsible too, we can't blame it all on Bush when the power to vote and fund the war came from more than one person. Both parties have access to enough details to make intelliegent decisions. Data came from as early as the 1990's. The USA cannot rally support of other nations and lead coalition forces into a war based on false information. Saddam fooled us with propaganda aimed at us and Iran and the paranoia set in.

[Bill]

To make it easy to check this thread and assess it for attack rhetoric.

[Smurf-Herder]

Please take note of how any discussion of Democrats in a thread they are the topic of has been repeatedly diverted to demonizing Republicans.

No matter how you cut it, nobody wants to actually address the issues I posted on, involving the new Congress. All it comes down to is a general defense; ignoring the specific issues I brought up, by attacking the other side. Just giving them a free pass.

[LogicallyYours]

Wrong both parties have access to the same information on Iraq and both parties have independent sources as well as the ability to communicate with other countries and rely on intel from abraod. Both parties share equally!! If the Dems did not believe the intel why vote, its not like they were forced to vote in favor of war now was it??

We need to phase in Iraqi troops now and bring home 30% before the end of the year. If Obama wins and brings everyone home right away, there will be hell to pay in Iraq for a long time. Regardeless of how we got there, we need to finish the job and hand off the responsibility to the govt. of Iraq. If we leave to soon, odds are we will end up going back again, next time will be to stop the genocide.

Plenty of blame to spread around. Fact is all the politicians who say "I didn't vote for that war" are simply repeating the same message to gain political clout from the people. It is a useful tool to garner support with such messages, though misleading and twisted, such messages work. Yet Dems in Congress funded the war again and again. Regardless of WMD's the humantarian effort will benefit Iraq.

Regardin:

"Wrong both parties have access to the same information on Iraq and both parties have independent sources as well as the ability to communicate with other countries and rely on intel from abraod. Both parties share equally!! If the Dems did not believe the intel why vote, its not like they were forced to vote in favor of war now was it?? "

That's just not true. The Oval Office gets to decide what Congress can and cannot see. That's just the way it is.

[Bill]

No matter how you cut it, nobody wants to actually address the issues I posted on, involving the new Congress. All it comes down to is a general defense; ignoring the specific issues I brought up, by attacking the other side. Just giving them a free pass.

So what's your proposed solution?

[LogicallyYours]

Please take note of how any discussion of Democrats in a thread they are the topic of has been repeatedly diverted to demonizing Republicans.

No matter how you cut it, nobody wants to actually address the issues I posted on, involving the new Congress. All it comes down to is a general defense; ignoring the specific issues I brought up, by attacking the other side. Just giving them a free pass.

No, you just want to hear what people have to say. See your post on the first page:
I don't plan on debating these issues in detail here, btw.

[Smurf-Herder]

So what's your proposed solution?

I think you've tried that tactic before.

The solution is to get people like you, who avoid dealing with it, to deal with it.

Everybody's screaming to do everything under the sun to the Republicans. But when are people like you going to care about the people you defend, or ignore?

[Smurf-Herder]

No, you just want to hear what people have to say. See your post on the first page:
I don't plan on debating these issues in detail here, btw.

I wanted to see if anyone was capable of recognizing a problem, not associated with the Republicans; before I made myself a lone target.

Call it an experiment in futility.

Although it was nice to see some defend the Republicans. The idea was to see if anyone could present a good defense of recent Democratic Congressional actions - without resorting to going after the Republicans. Republicans have been able to do that here, repreatedly. I know all haven't; but a lot have. And I'd like to see at least some from the other side.

BTW, I have a few serious gripes with Bush and the Republican elite. But I don't see anyone on the other side saying much about the Democrat elite. I don't defend everything they do, as some might think. But that's all I see, for the most part, from the other side.

[bigfootzx]

Regardin:

"Wrong both parties have access to the same information on Iraq and both parties have independent sources as well as the ability to communicate with other countries and rely on intel from abraod. Both parties share equally!! If the Dems did not believe the intel why vote, its not like they were forced to vote in favor of war now was it?? "

That's just not true. The Oval Office gets to decide what Congress can and cannot see. That's just the way it is.

The house and senate have access to intel, maybe not the full details. do you think they vote for war on a blank sheet of paper ? How about Spain?
The UK, Canada, etc...... Even the media had sources divulging intel. To get the majority vote they have to sell it on paper and demonstrate the best arguement.

Do I need to post the letters to the President from People like both Clintons, Madeline Albright, and various member sof congress?

Any idiot can make crap up on a Dem site that santizes the news and also lies to sell a story that is really geared at selling a story to garner votes. Both parties do it and they do it well. They voted for the war and they do have sources of intel, no one votes on a blank sheet of paper!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get real!!!!!

[Bill]

I think you've tried that tactic before.

The solution is to get people like you, who avoid dealing with it, to deal with it.

Everybody's screaming to do everything under the sun to the Republicans. But when are people like you going to care about the people you defend, or ignore?

So, you are claiming that the republicans have no special interest groups?

---

I ask about solutions, in an honest bipartisan effort to address a problem that affects everyone, regardless of party.

Because both parties are affected by 'special interest groups'.

And you turn my honest inquiry and bipartisan offer to seek solutions into another attack.

This is what I've come to expect. Every honest outreach rebuffed with increasingly vicious attacks. It happens every time, no matter how carefully reasonable I try to be.

So, you see why I doubt your sincerity.

It looks to me like this is just more dirty tricks.

[Bill]

However, since it is clearly going to fall to the blues to be the bigger men, let's take a look at what seem to be your complaints.

First off, I would have picked the telecom and media industries as being the worst and the most pernicious and dangerous of the special interest groups trying to control the dems.

Then I would have gone for the health insurers, insurers in general, and the bankers.

Big coal and the electric utilities - maybe that should go next

I would say the manufacturers have caused far more harm to the public than the farmers - altho, at a certain point, since we are dealing with interlocking corporate boards, and you can't really draw a line between general electric and cargill - anyway, at least the farmers aren't shipping jobs out of the country at anywhere near the rate of the manufacturers.

Under the manufacturers, I'd put the farmers - or, really, what we are talking about are the farming corporations, because family farmers don't have the money or the power to make serious campaign contributions.

Lawyers are an odd case. Everyone hates lawyers - right up to the moment your HMO tries to screw you, or you get badly injured. Then everyone wants a bloodsucking lawyer to fight for them.

Okay, that's my first rough list of special interests trying to control the dems.

So, like I said, my first reaction to your complaint - was to think "Farmers and Lawyers seem like minor problems copmpared to Big Media and Telcom, Big Insurance, Big Electricity, and Big Manufacturers, all of who donate much more money to campaign funds and therefore are far more dangerous to the american people.".

And neither farmers, nor lawyers, got us into these wars, or mishandled our energy supply and the economy.

[Bill]

Okay, now, as to what should be done about the problem.

I believe that campaign reform is the single most important political problem and issue facing americans today.

Since I don't believe the republicans will even try to do serious campaign reform, I wouldn't know what to do if the republicans take power again.

I don't believe I could do anything in that case. I would be disenfranchised from the political process, and my concerns would not be heard in washington.

But, if the democrats win, I plan to do two things - first, continue my long term efforts to create a viable new party, and second, throw all the political effort I've been making these last few years into pushing for campaign reform.

I'll have two years to make efforts on this untill the first important senatorial election in my state comes up. I have a number of campaign reform ideas prepared, and ready to go.

I think the dems are just scared enough of the public, what with the effect of the netroots and netroots money, that there's a chance of making some changes. Probably not as many as I would like, probably not true public funding of all elections, but that's politics.

The one really good consequence of these wars is the politicization of the american public. I think that politicians have just begun to be scared of the voters, and that they are going to learn that they can't get away with the shit they used to.

So, that's my proposed solution - right after this election, we start hammering the politicians about election reform. And don't stop, targeting the 2010 elections as a punishment for those who don't support reforms.

[Smurf-Herder]

Okay Bill, it wasn't an attack, but a criticism.

But thankyou for the extended input.

I want ethics reform too; and I think both parties are frustrating that. The bi-partisan campaign finance reform bill was an example of that. It didn't help anything. But was touted as a success.

BTW, I want to know your opinion of the William Jefferson case. This has been stalled since Katrina, when he was discovered with $90,000 hidden in his freezer, that were bribes from a foreign government The case has been stonewalled by the Dems since it first came out.

This would be a prime example of ethics reform promised, but not being implemented.

[Moby]

I know, but the legislature has independent sources as well as the ability to request documents from the whitehouse. The whitehouse had to share intelliegence to garner support for the war. I have not seen proof that congress did not request documents. Sources at the pentagon can produce summaries based on the intelliegence gathered, if there were discrepancies between the summaries and the hard data, someone would have found it by now. I have not seen proof that members of both parties not invited to the white house to view documents either, proof from hate groups and websites that talk as if they have a clue. You also have to remember afterthefact, going into elections, politicians are not honest about a war they voted for that has become an intelliegence embarrassment. Easy to lie to garner more votes for Dems.
When Rumsfeld and Cheney stated that there was bullet proof evidence that Iraq had WMD the intel that they spoke about was not available outside of the confines of The NSA and The Oval Office. No invite means no access.

Pentagon summaries are part of the problem and not the solution. Who is in charge of hiring and firing the people that write those summaries?

Most elected officials knew about The PNAC letters from 1998. They knew the background of these people are the role they played in Watergate. They knew the Bush family background. However, they had a difficult choice to make. The media was all up in their ass if they didn't support the war in very similar fashion to that of Nazi Germany. Anyone that didn't openly support the war was automatically labeled "Unpatriotic".

Yes they knew that these people already started the process of war in 1998. They knew that the odds of them being lied to was great but they also knew that they would never get access to the real intel and that a vote for the war would help them keep their jobs.

Yes, they should have voted against it but if you believe that the information was not manipulated and that people weren't strong armed into voting for it then you need to do more research on how Washington works because you simply don't have a clue. I'm sorry to be harsh but it's obviously true.

I agree that they should have stood up even though it would have cost them their jobs and the livelihood of their families. I do not agree, and it's just silly to think, that the information was not manipulated.

[bigfootzx]

However, since it is clearly going to fall to the blues to be the bigger men, let's take a look at what seem to be your complaints.

First off, I would have picked the telecom and media industries as being the worst and the most pernicious and dangerous of the special interest groups trying to control the dems.

Then I would have gone for the health insurers, insurers in general, and the bankers.

Big coal and the electric utilities - maybe that should go next

I would say the manufacturers have caused far more harm to the public than the farmers - altho, at a certain point, since we are dealing with interlocking corporate boards, and you can't really draw a line between general electric and cargill - anyway, at least the farmers aren't shipping jobs out of the country at anywhere near the rate of the manufacturers.

Under the manufacturers, I'd put the farmers - or, really, what we are talking about are the farming corporations, because family farmers don't have the money or the power to make serious campaign contributions.

Lawyers are an odd case. Everyone hates lawyers - right up to the moment your HMO tries to screw you, or you get badly injured. Then everyone wants a bloodsucking lawyer to fight for them.

Okay, that's my first rough list of special interests trying to control the dems.

So, like I said, my first reaction to your complaint - was to think "Farmers and Lawyers seem like minor problems copmpared to Big Media and Telcom, Big Insurance, Big Electricity, and Big Manufacturers, all of who donate much more money to campaign funds and therefore are far more dangerous to the american people.".

And neither farmers, nor lawyers, got us into these wars, or mishandled our energy supply and the economy.

Good point! Too bad farmers are losing ground to corporate farms that have infested the industry. Farm subsidies become profit for men running a laptop instead of a tractor. Both parties got us in Iraq despite the masquerade that it was all fabricated so Bush could kill Saddam and get that oil. There is a humanitarian effort to stop genocide. Same as when Clinton sent us into Haiti and Kosvo. Paranoid narcasistic lunatics with a power fetish, both parties have such men and women.

[bigfootzx]

When Rumsfeld and Cheney stated that there was bullet proof evidence that Iraq had WMD the intel that they spoke about was not available outside of the confines of The NSA and The Oval Office. No invite means no access.

Pentagon summaries are part of the problem and not the solution. Who is in charge of hiring and firing the people that write those summaries?

Most elected officials knew about The PNAC letters from 1998. They knew the background of these people are the role they played in Watergate. They knew the Bush family background. However, they had a difficult choice to make. The media was all up in their ass if they didn't support the war in very similar fashion to that of Nazi Germany. Anyone that didn't openly support the war was automatically labeled "Unpatriotic".

Yes they knew that these people already started the process of war in 1998. They knew that the odds of them being lied to was great but they also knew that they would never get access to the real intel and that a vote for the war would help them keep their jobs.

Yes, they should have voted against it but if you believe that the information was not manipulated and that people weren't strong armed into voting for it then you need to do more research on how Washington works because you simply don't have a clue. I'm sorry to be harsh but it's obviously true.

I agree that they should have stood up even though it would have cost them their jobs and the livelihood of their families. I do not agree, and it's just silly to think, that the information was not manipulated.

Summaries are based on the details, those summaries will be declassified to produce a full picture of the story Bush was selling to Congress. No way they fabricated the whole thing. The mis-read the intel and over reacted. Saddam made it worse with his WMD propaganda designed to keep us and Iran guessing.

Many mistakes were made, but both parties were sold the same story. When the docs are declassifed a full account of the details will be assessed. No one can be prosecuted since they write a get out of jail clause into all laws as they are written and passed.

When Clinton wanted to invade Kosovo, the media and members of congress who were against the war were also considered Unpatriotic!! Same game different party. Now tell me it just ain't so and post proof from a politically neutral website that makes an honest days pay??? Both parties are manipulated by the lobbiests, military and defense contractors, even wall street has an agenda with war = cold hard cash$$$.

The media had their own sources and they were selling the same story, after the first few weeks of the war and no WMD's they flip flopped and cryed foul, been going downhill every since. I wonder how many made mistakes and died due to low morale and lack of support.



Yes, they should have voted against it but if you believe that the information was not manipulated and that people weren't strong armed into voting for it then you need to do more research on how Washington works because you simply don't have a clue. I'm sorry to be harsh but it's obviously true.

I agree that they should have stood up even though it would have cost them their jobs and the livelihood of their families. I do not agree, and it's just silly to think, that the information was not manipulated.

I don't think you are being harsh but quite frankly you are playing party politics as if the otherside has never done it. I know what info is made available, I also know congress had military briefings to discuss the call to war and ask questions. I also know when Dems are crying foul for a war they voted for and a lot of crying foul is more about gaining support for votes in the election. Dems cryed foul and funded the war again and again. Dems cryed foul going into the 2006 elections and it cooled down afterthefact. More about votes than change!!!

Both sides know the real answers were in Iraq where we were not permitted to go. All the Bush lied crap is about votes, fact is we did not know what Saddam had till after the invasion and after he was captured & interogated. We simply did not know! Didn't Clinton say there were WMD's and didn't he fire missles at Iraq based on intel Dems aquired??? Mountains of data and no definitive answer. It may have taken another decade to get the answers if we had waited. And we should have gathered more intel and hired better informants.

Strong arm tactics are quite common, look at the healthcare reform vote last year, they kept congress in session till what 2am or so, talk about manipulation. Manipulation is why I keep complaining about the corporate goones in D.C. Both sides have sellouts in favor making money at all regardless of who gets hurt. We are their puppets!

[LogicallyYours]

The house and senate have access to intel, maybe not the full details. do you think they vote for war on a blank sheet of paper ? How about Spain?
The UK, Canada, etc...... Even the media had sources divulging intel. To get the majority vote they have to sell it on paper and demonstrate the best arguement.

Do I need to post the letters to the President from People like both Clintons, Madeline Albright, and various member sof congress?

Any idiot can make crap up on a Dem site that santizes the news and also lies to sell a story that is really geared at selling a story to garner votes. Both parties do it and they do it well. They voted for the war and they do have sources of intel, no one votes on a blank sheet of paper!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get real!!!!!

Unless you have been living underground for the last 6 years...The Bush administration vetted, cherry-picked and then presented what it wanted, as Intel to the Congress and Senate. The Congress and Senate based their decisions on what they were allowed to see.

This isn't even open for debate, it's fact.

[bigfootzx]

Unless you have been living underground for the last 6 years...The Bush administration vetted, cherry-picked and then presented what it wanted, as Intel to the Congress and Senate. The Congress and Senate based their decisions on what they were allowed to see.

This isn't even open for debate, it's fact.

Like I said summaries had many details. If it weren't for the Dems pursuit of the whitehouse, this would not be as big of a deal. You guys need to lay off the neo liberal sites, I'll be glad to post some of the nut job sites that are equally as bad as the neocons, only they have more in common with a pacafist. The fact that congress did not see the full details is small. Did Clinton show his hand with Sudan or Kosavo ?? No, detailed summaries.

Both parties pollute the minds of the public, just another example of Dems lying to get power, both parties do it, sure they have some issues, but fact is, this is more about the elections than dead soldiers. Typical political hypocrisy and you and Sirmoby bought it hook line and sinker.

[LogicallyYours]

Like I said summaries had many details. If it weren't for the Dems pursuit of the whitehouse, this would not be as big of a deal. You guys need to lay off the neo liberal sites, I'll be glad to post some of the nut job sites that are equally as bad as the neocons, only they have more in common with a pacafist. The fact that congress did not see the full details is small. Did Clinton show his hand with Sudan or Kosavo ?? No, detailed summaries.

Both parities pollute the minds of the public, just another examle of Dems lying to get power, sure they have some issues, but fact is, this is more about the elections than dead soldiers. Typical political hypocrisy and you and Sirmoby bought it hook line and sinker.

Nice side step. I'm an Idependent and have voted for both Republican and Democrat in the past.

The fact that the Bush administration mislead this country into a war is not open for debate, it's a fact.

If it had been a Democratic administration, I'd jump on their crap also. It has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, but rather right vs. wrong.

[bigfootzx]

Nice side step. I'm an Idependent and have voted for both Republican and Democrat in the past.

The fact that the Bush administration mislead this country into a war is not open for debate, it's a fact.

If it had been a Democratic administration, I'd jump on their crap also. It has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, but rather right vs. wrong.

I vote the same way, choose who I think will best represent the people. I always vote as an indendent. I see to many blind eye arguements from both sides and know there is more at stake than a one sided arguement in politics.

There is no proof Bush intetionally lied to the people, just opinion. We know Saddam lied. Fact is, they can make the case for war and even a flimsy arguement will work when they use data from the 1990's. The call to war was as weak as Koolaid. If there were any lies, the data will be declassified during the next administration hopefully. Paranoid men can do a lot of damage when the leader agrees with them.

[LogicallyYours]

I vote the same way, choose who I think will best represent the people. I always vote as an indendent. I see to many blind eye arguements from both sides and know there is more at stake than a one sided arguement in politics.

There is no proof Bush intetionally lied to the people, just opinion. We know Saddam lied. Fact is, they can make the case for war and even a flimsy arguement will work when they use data from the 1990's. The call to war was as weak as Koolaid. If there were any lies, the data will be declassified during the next administration hopefully. Paranoid men can do a lot of damage when the leader agrees with them.

I said "mislead". "Mislead" has been proven. A "lie" is tougher to prove without someone rolling over. Having said that, the current administration has lied about many things and has shown that honesty and credibility are just words to this administration.

I think history will show that Dick Cheney was the architect of the ill-conceived war and that, Bush was nothing more than a willing stooge.

[bigfootzx]

I said "mislead". "Mislead" has been proven. A "lie" is tougher to prove without someone rolling over. Having said that, the current administration has lied about many things and has shown that honesty and credibility are just words to this administration.

I think history will show that Dick Cheney was the architect of the ill-conceived war and that, Bush was nothing more than a willing stooge.

Reps do have a conscious despite the war. There are too many people in the bureacracy on both sides. No way a conspriacy happened. Mistakes, arogance, power and greed were the true enemies.

How many Dems work in the intelligence agencies, probably close to a 50 50 ratio???? Right Right??? If the intel were faked someone would go public and say this is not true, you need to hold hearings and ask for the data to be declassified or invite a large group of Dems to the NSA or whitehouse to peruse the data. Dems would have delayed signing the war bill.

This is nothing more than the same old stupid crap that dems were dreaming up crap and saying Bush should be impeached, yet they sounded stupid as if he could be impeached when clearly every Bill has a clause to preempt impeachment. Even if the Supreme Court said the war was unconstitutional, nothing could be done to the president nor congress. All bills are written this way.

There are many Dems who would leak the details and say the intel is fake, check it out before you vote!!! The fantasy that Bush lied is just that. Now can they twist the facts to support a logical debate to go to war, both parties do it!! Saddam bluffed and we screwed up, the history is what it is and no proof has surfaced to suggest anyone lied. Bush knows the data will be declassified and the data be deseminated.

Silly democrats fabricate as much as reps, its all about the votes. Wait till after the elections. The data will support a weak arguement. I love how stupid dems love to pretend saddam never confessed to faking wmds.

[Bill]

BTW, I want to know your opinion of the William Jefferson case. This has been stalled since Katrina, when he was discovered with $90,000 hidden in his freezer, that were bribes from a foreign government The case has been stonewalled by the Dems since it first came out.

This would be a prime example of ethics reform promised, but not being implemented.

It's not my state, so in most ways I don't regard it as my reponsibility, nor that I can do anything about it. So I don't follow it, and know few relevant facts about wether or not "the case has been stonewalled by the Dems".

I would first want to see some reportage that indicated that the case had been stonewalled by the dems.

My first assumption would be if there was delay, it would be caused by the lawyers, not by the politicians.

If it's caused by politicians, I would have expected to be hearing about that steadily. Certainly the red media isn't shy about reporting that kind of thing. That would force the other media to take it up.

Personally, I figure we don't hear about for the same reasons we don't hear about the alaskan senators or renzi or the others under indictment - because the lawyers are fighting it out.

From what I've heard, it sounds like he's guilty. I have zero tolerance for corruption. I figure he should go to jail, hopefully soon. However, I won't be sitting on the jury, so my opinion means nothing.

---

I'm also very suspicious that the investigative process was corrupted by a politicized justice dept.

That's a problem to be solved by electing a dem president and investigating the activities of justice.

[Smurf-Herder]

It's not my state, so in most ways I don't regard it as my reponsibility, nor that I can do anything about it. So I don't follow it, and know few relevant facts about wether or not "the case has been stonewalled by the Dems".

I would first want to see some reportage that indicated that the case had been stonewalled by the dems.

My first assumption would be if there was delay, it would be caused by the lawyers, not by the politicians.

If it's caused by politicians, I would have expected to be hearing about that steadily. Certainly the red media isn't shy about reporting that kind of thing. That would force the other media to take it up.

Personally, I figure we don't hear about for the same reasons we don't hear about the alaskan senators or renzi or the others under indictment - because the lawyers are fighting it out.

From what I've heard, it sounds like he's guilty. I have zero tolerance for corruption. I figure he should go to jail, hopefully soon. However, I won't be sitting on the jury, so my opinion means nothing.

---

I'm also very suspicious that the investigative process was corrupted by a politicized justice dept.

That's a problem to be solved by electing a dem president and investigating the activities of justice.

Just to being you up to speed on this guy, I'm reposting this from another thread; so you know what I'm talking about.

Affidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/index.html

"In a 95-page affidavit used to obtain a warrant for the office search, investigators stated that an August 2005 search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's home turned up the cash sum in a freezer.

The money was divided among various frozen food containers, according to the heavily redacted affidavit.

Jackson pleaded guilty in federal court earlier this month to bribing the congressman with more than $400,000 in payments, company stock and a share of the profits in order to promote iGate's high-tech business ventures in Africa.

Agents told a judge the money was part of a $100,000 payment that had been delivered by an informant in the bribery probe, which already has led to guilty pleas by a Kentucky businessman and a former Jefferson aide.

The Justice Department has been investigating Jefferson's relationship to telecommunications deals in Africa and elsewhere, and the House Ethics Committee launched an investigation of him last week.

But the affidavit states that investigators have collected evidence linking Jefferson to at least seven other cases in which he "sought things of value in return for his performance of official acts."

Agents had previously searched Jefferson's home in New Orleans. The cash found in his Washington residence was part of a $100,000 payment delivered by a cooperating witness, according to the affidavit, which said the delivery was videotaped by the FBI.

The FBI began investigating Jefferson in March 2005 stemming from accusations made by the witness, a Virginia resident who owns an investment firm.

He told the FBI that he was "a victim of a fraud and bribery scheme" involving Jefferson; Vernon Jackson, CEO of the Louisville, Kentucky-based company iGate; and Brett Pfeffer, the president of the investment firm owned by the unnamed witness and a former Jefferson aide.

According to the affidavit, Jefferson had asked the witness for a percentage ownership interest in his Nigerian broadband company in exchange for the congressman "using his official acts to support the the Nigerian business venture."

Pfeffer, of Herndon, Virginia, pleaded guilty in January to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official.

Both have agreed to cooperate with authorities as part of their plea agreements.

The affidavit states Jefferson "attempted to use his position as a United States Congressman" to promote other iGate business ventures in Nigeria, Ghana and possibly other African nations.

"In exchange for his official acts supporting the proposed business ventures," the affidavit said, Jefferson has received a 30 percent equity stake in the witness' Nigerian company and more than $400,000 in payments from iGate."

What did the Democrats do about this when they got into power?

Rep. Jefferson to Get Homeland Security Seat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601672.html

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who yanked embattled Rep. William J. Jefferson off a powerful tax committee last year, has decided to put him on the Homeland Security panel, aides to the Louisiana Democrat confirmed yesterday."

[Bill]

That's funny, putting him on homeland security. Since homeland security is a disaster of epic proportions, that seems somehow appropriate.

Apparently he was re-elected by his constituents after the charges, I didn't know that. Right after the charges, it looks like.

I don't see any mention of a trial. It sounds like they took him off a powerful comittee and put him on a weak comittee.

Sounds like a good project for the new ethics committee. This is why the new comittee has been formed. I'm sure cases like Jefferson and Renzi will be first on the table.

Altho there still remains the problem - if the constituents voted a person in, what to do with that person if they are under indictment?

Wasn't Tom Delay under indictment for a long time, while still serving in critical positions? I can't recall the details, but I'm seeing some google snippets about that

I'd have to study what the republicans did in similar cases to decide if the dems acted unfairly. It sounds like by taking him off ways and means (the most powerful committee of all) the dems may have punished him more than the repubs punished DeLay and Renzi.

That article was a year old. Was he formally approved?

Nevertheless, Jefferson won reelection in December to a ninth term, and he has been an outspoken critic of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Pelosi's decision to appoint Jefferson to the committee must still be formally approved by House Democrats.

"It sends a terrible message," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the committee's ranking Republican. "They couldn't trust him to write tax policy, so why should he be given access to our nation's top secrets or making policy for national defense?

"Members of the committee have access to intelligence secrets, plots here in the country, overseas, and people under suspicion. This shows how unimportant the Democrats think homeland security is," King said.

Jefferson's chief of staff, Eugene Green, called King's criticism "ridiculous and just politics."

"Representing New Orleans as he does, we're very concerned as to what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina," Green said. "It's just natural for the congressman to serve his constituents on a committee of this nature."


He's mentioned here - bit's about the delays in the trial and the new ethics comittee.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-ethics12mar12,1,5884808.story

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002674274

Ahhh - looks like Jefferson is arguing the speech or debate clauses shield him from being prosecuted until after his terms are over. But the trial is happening soon.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080306/BUSINESS/399798496/1006

---

Looks like House ethics is very complex:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3889980.shtml

the subcommittee, which has been charged with determining whether Renzi "violated the Official Code of Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct in his performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities" as a lawmaker. Renzi has been indicted on 35 federal counts of fraud, embezzlement, exortotion, money laundering and conspiracy. He will be arraigned on March 4.

But as all House ethics committee watchers know - and the Crypt counts itself among that fraternity - the ethics committee is not going to do anything about Renzi. Nothing. Not a blessed thing. Bank on it.

You ask why? Rule 15, paragraph F, of the official rules for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, explains the situation succinctly: "The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has reason to believe is being reviewed by appopriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee determines that is appropriate for the conduct alleged in the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or regulatory authorities."

[Smurf-Herder]

That's funny, putting him on homeland security. Since homeland security is a disaster of epic proportions, that seems somehow appropriate.

Apparently he was re-elected by his constituents after the charges, I didn't know that. Right after the charges, it looks like.

I don't see any mention of a trial. It sounds like they took him off a powerful comittee and put him on a weak comittee.

Sounds like a good project for the new ethics committee. This is why the new comittee has been formed. I'm sure cases like Jefferson and Renzi will be first on the table.

Altho there still remains the problem - if the constituents voted a person in, what to do with that person if they are under indictment?

Wasn't Tom Delay under indictment for a long time, while still serving in critical positions? I can't recall the details, but I'm seeing some google snippets about that

I'd have to study what the republicans did in similar cases to decide if the dems acted unfairly. It sounds like by taking him off ways and means (the most powerful committee of all) the dems may have punished him more than the repubs punished DeLay and Renzi.

That article was a year old. Was he formally approved?



He's mentioned here - bit's about the delays in the trial and the new ethics comittee.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-ethics12mar12,1,5884808.story

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002674274

Ahhh - looks like Jefferson is arguing the speech or debate clauses shield him from being prosecuted until after his terms are over. But the trial is happening soon.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080306/BUSINESS/399798496/1006

---

Looks like House ethics is very complex:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3889980.shtml


The trial could be delayed for months because of appeals. Regardless of how far the court case has gotten, I have a hard time understanding why they'd put someone accused of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes on a committee that regularly has access to classified national security information. It seems like too much of a reward ......... and a temptation for him.