Two more points. First, in one post (different thread?) you talked about how the Administration controls everything in an evil way. Isn't it their FBI and DoJ that's investigating and prosecuting Republicans (e.g. their own party members)? Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington "We are progressive," said Naomi Seligman, the group's deputy director and communications director. "We do work within a larger progressive infrastructure." Seligman suggested her group is the progressive counterweight to Judicial Watch.<sup id="cite_ref-bill_1-0" class="reference">[2]</sup> One of their most visible projects is an annual report of Washington's most corrupt politicians entitled, "Beyond Delay."
Go ahead and laugh. The truth is that there is a disgusting pattern of republican congressmen abusing their power. After the Dems control the white house and congress for a few years, they will also succumb to temptation--but that's no reason to overlook the ongoing abuses right now. Whether or not funding for the troops was lifted is a whole different issue than what I am talking about, and obviously has nothing to do with corruption, and I'm a bit perplexed and a little saddened that you would link them. Every single congressman on that list should be voted out of office, plus probably at least a dozen others, solely because of their (lack of) ethical behavior).
I don't know the full story about the so-called bridge to nowhere, but it is my understanding that Ms. Palin originally supported the earmark. Of course, I fully support politicians changing their mind--I am most against our elected officials trying to be "resolute" in the face of new information and changing conditions--but I just point that out as evidence that I dont (and I think most peole don't) really know her views on this or other topics. As for Jefferson--he belongs in jail. There is no question about it. if you have the time, this is a good place to look for interesting information. As I said, I fully support the work of CREW, and I believe strongly in their integrity. I also believe that ethical issues have a place in our election processes. http://www.citizensforethics.org/projects
Why is an ethics debate breaking out in a thread about a Presidential election? These topics couldn't be more unrelated.
I am laughing. Remember one of my favorite sayings tho: "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200601/ai_n17187197 Since Watergate, a key media template has been that the GOP is the party of corruption. Thus, every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages. Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans. Skeptics can go to the website of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Click on "historical documents," and go to a publication called "Historical Summary of Conduct cases in the House of Representatives." The document was last updated on Nov. 9, 2004, and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a "stout cane," and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs. By my count, there have been 70 different House members who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, while 55 involved Democrats.
Ethics is why or why not to vote for either party based upon your criteria (the one not in control of congress).
It is very complex. The mechanisms have been explained to me, but I hardly remember it. However, I think part of the answer is that the House ethics committee had to approve a resolution to investigate a house member, and that, when controlled by the republicans, they never did. I think the FBI and DOJ get involved when there are allegations that federal law have been violated, such as when they set up a sting operation, which is different from investigating an allegation of a past offense. Again, it's complicated, and I couldn't begin to explain why that is not sufficient.
Explain to me why I should believe any of these people bring an unbiased eye to what they do http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/staff For starters, the Executive Director is listed as working for 3 different dems in congress. Secondly, the website that you linked to is named after a former republican congressman (Beyond DeLay). Thirdly, and this really bugs me, that website provides no direct link to who CREW is. Finally, the only link to CREW is a SUPPORT CREW button at the bottom of every page. Guess what, that link goes to a CREW page on the site democracyinaction.org which when you view the homepage says democracy in action, wiring the progressive movement. All I'm seeing is Dick Vitale and Billy Packer telling me how great the ACC is
I don't doubt that is true. I would never advocate voting for one party indefinitely because of some imperssion that its members are more ethical. These things go in cycles, and grow and wane in direct step with the length of time a party is in power. In six or eight years, if the Democrats regain controll of both houses of congress and the white house, the tide will undoubtedly turn. However, as a voter, I believe that one of my duties is to react to the actions of the CURRENT group of politicians.
The House ethics committee is the one committee where the party in control doesn't have the votes to control the committee. For obvious reasons. Occam's Razor. Maybe the Bush Administration is actually doing the right thing and pursuing crimes committed by either party.
yes, ghoti, you used the phrase "vote for a party" instead of "vote for the presidency," and so I took it from there.
again, I don't recall the details, but I believe the person who has explained it to me (several times).
The Chief Council of the group formerly worked as Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and before that for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. I trust neither of those government agencies to serve the people's best interest. CREW looks, acts and smells like a progressive policy group.
How would one determine which party is more ethical? That seems impossible to me. I'm from NJ. The best Governors by far have been Republicans. Both parties are irredeemably corrupt, but there are always more Democrats in office.
Wrong about what? I'm sure there are people that are close to Sarah Palin that believe she is very qualified to be VP and would tell you to trust them that you are wrong.
touche. But perhaps they wouldn't be hesitant to explain why on a very public internet bulletin board, which I am.
FWIW, I'd prefer all our elected officials had the qualifications that Palin has. That is, I'd prefer a government by people who are ordinary citizens vs. career politicians.
