Banned
|
Interesting...roachboy....that the biggest failing....if I read you correctly..is that the conservatives consolidated enough political power to put the nuts and bolts of their agenda into actual practice....in the real world....with it's warts and wrinkles on display....instead of having it rise to a loftier...but untried, theoretical stature...as in, "be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it".
...and loquitur, two great posts from you.....and I can't disagree with you that all politicians seem to be corrupt....to some degree.
That said.... I understand why some believe me to be "blindly partisan"....you are what you post. I try to determine the "flavor", depth, and consequences of the corruption that is exhibited by indivdual politicians, and by the major parties, through the prism of my "issues".....
Is the corruption coordinated, and what is it easing in terms of what is being attempted or accomplished?
Viewed with my issues.... government response to larger budget deficit and trend toward further wealth concentration, privacy rights (includes woman's right to determine what happens in her uterus, 4th amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure..)...equal set of laws, accountability, and enforcement, regardless of wealth or connections....vigorous environmental protection and rapid competent disaster response, open, responsive (to populist concerns..) and accountable government....government and courts committed to protecting the least of us...(those disadvantaged by their lack of economic resources, race, gender, age, infirmity, or unpopular religion or ideology....) Either all of the consideration and resources that Scooter Libby received after his indictment on criminal charges....for every Joe six pack charged with a crime....or no special consideration for Libby or any J6P.....
....my "issues" may seem unreasonable, but our government and elected officials once performed much better than today, in working to preserve/enhance all of them....
My example of a republican congressional representative who I could support:
(From my post on the Ustwo thread, "I Trust The Rich"):
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/editpos...post&p=1952232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
.........Rather than think 'I wish I had that kind of money' or get jealous, I've been studying how the game works and what makes one wealthy. They know how to play the game, and you don't learn how to play well by watching the losers.
I've come to trust the rich.
|
Well, Ustwo....you have me at a disadvantage. For once, if the anecdotal evidence of your own former Illinois senator, Peter Fitzgerald, is any indication,
I have to agree with you. Fitzgerald was wealthy enough to finance his own senate campaign. I'm assuming that you share Fitzgerald's wisdom, but I haven't read posts on the forum by you that have included your condemnation of our house speaker or of other members of the Illinois congressional delegation.
Here it is, from the most "fair and balanced" news source that I could find:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...111159,00.html
<b>Retiring Senator Stood Up for Principles</b>
Thursday, February 12, 2004
By Radley Balko
When a long-serving politician retires, we’re often treated to windbag editorials from newspapers and columnists about the virtue of public service, and how the latest retiring politician contributed to it.
Never mind that one of the ways one becomes a long-serving politician is by building up constituencies by doling out pork and patronage, and that many long-serving politicians spend their careers lusting after the perks and privileges of power.
When Congress adjourns this year, <B>Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (search), R-Ill., will retire after just one term. He’s retiring because his own party has turned on him and promised to run a primary candidate against him.</B> That’s because this particular senator decided that while he was in office he’d be his own man and vote his own conscience. He wouldn’t be a lackey for his party, he wouldn’t vote pork home to his state, and he wouldn’t do what the special interests who run his party told him to do. And that got him into trouble. click to show
When Fitzgerald announced his retirement last April, he’d already been the scorn of his home state’s newspaper columnists and editorial boards. <b>The Republican Party — both state and national — was elated to see him go.</b> The Washington Times ran an editorial gloating over his departure. No one, it seems, would be shedding any tears over Peter Fitzgerald’s retirement. That’s too bad, because we need a heck of a lot more Peter Fitzgeralds in Washington.
Six years ago, Fitzgerald ran against troubled incumbent Democrat Carol Moseley Braun (search). <b>He financed his own campaign, indicating early on that he’d be beholden to no one.</b> The media immediately tapped him as a fringe candidate from the Christian right — an ill-informed and unfair characterization. A better label would be “principled.” Fitzgerald showed more of that rare Washington commodity in one term than most politicians show in a lifetime.
Fitzgerald’s crowning achievement in his brief career was his opposition to the federalization of a planned expansion of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport (search). Congress’ seal of approval would have ensured that the $13 billion expansion forge ahead, without any input from Illinois residents, including those who owned the hundreds of homes and dozens of businesses that would have been bulldozed to make way for the new runways. The expansion was pushed by a shady consortium of business developers, who launched a PR campaign just as its major players were making political contributions to prominent and powerful Illinois politicians. Fitzgerald’s opposition to federalizing what should have been a local issue postponed the expansion, which later fizzled when the airlines endured post-Sept. 11 financial problems.
Fitzgerald showed some admirable backbone there, too. He was the only senator in the U.S. Congress to vote against the $15 billion airline bailout, despite the fact that United Airlines is based in Illinois and American Airlines has a major hub at O’Hare.
<b>Fitzgerald next earned the wrath of fellow Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a fellow Republican and probably the most powerful politician in Illinois, if not the country. Fitzgerald and Hastert first tangled over Fitzgerald’s refusal to support Hastert’s efforts to secure a glut of federal funding for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, located in Illinois. Hastert pulled rank to secure the money, and Fitzgerald criticized him publicly for it.
Fitzgerald then refused sign a letter written by the Illinois’ congressional delegation to President Bush, which requested the White House’s help in securing federal dollars (read: pork) for the state. Fitzgerald infuriated his colleagues when he wrote in a reply, “the mere fact that a project is located somewhere in Illinois does not mean that it is inherently meritorious and necessarily worthy of support.”
One can only guess that Speaker Hastert’s disgust with Fitzgerald stems from Fitzgerald’s principled refusal to play a game Hastert himself has mastered — wasting taxpayer dollars on needless home-district pork barrel projects. The state of Illinois has 19 congressional districts. According to the Washington Post, Hastert’s district — the 14th — gets a whopping 43 percent of the federal dollars that go to Illinois. This despite that the 14th is one of the richest districts in the state, and is home to just 5 percent of the state’s population. The Post also reports that nearly one-third of that money — about $5 million — will go to Northern Illinois University, where Hastert earned his graduate degree.</b>
<h3>Sen. Fitzgerald’s final sin was to nominate someone outside the state of Illinois to serve as U.S. Attorney for the northern district of Illinois, based in Chicago.</h3> In a 2002 hit piece on Fitzgerald, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Steve Neal scolded, “[t]he junior senator doesn't think that anyone who voted for him is qualified to sit in the U.S. attorney's chair on South Dearborn Street.”
Well, not quite. Instead of rewarding an aspiring local attorney for his political support with the nomination, as is custom in the U.S. Senate, Fitzgerald was more concerned about the ongoing investigation of then-governor and fellow Republican George Ryan, and wanted to be sure an aggressive prosecutor independent of local politics was assigned to the case. <h3>So he went out of state and nominated prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), who indicted Ryan on corruption charges last December.</h3>
I’m not a fan of everything Sen. Fitzgerald has done with his six years in Washington. He seems overly fond of arguably needless and wasteful environmental regulations, for example. But I do like that he thinks for himself, that he’s willing to put his neck on the line for honest, accountable government, and that he’s managed in just one term to agitate all the right people — the entrenched politicians, the powerful lobbyists, and the home-state interests hungry for pork.
So if no one else will say it, I will:
It’s too bad that Sen. Peter Fitzgerald is retiring. He deserves a promotion.
|
My point, Ustwo, is that your POV about most things, including the premise of your thread, seem to me to be as upside down as Dennis Hastert's are.
I may not know that I am wet, but at least I know that I am a fish.....
|
loquitur, as far as your example of a democrat who you could support....
Your "pick" Daniel P. Moynihan, received a positive obituary write up when he died in 2003....and his major sins....his part in the US blocking the UN from responding to the massacre of possibly 200,000 in East Timor in 1975, and his support for Israel beyond what was in the best interest of the US...were not even mentioned in the obit.....
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9659C8B63
.....Mr. Moynihan was always more a man of ideas than of legislation or partisan combat. Yet he was enough of a politician to win re-election easily -- and enough of a maverick with close Republican friends to be an occasional irritant to his Democratic party leaders. Before the Senate, his political home from 1977 to 2001, he served two Democratic presidents and two Republicans..
.....For more than 40 years, in and out of government, he became known for being among the first to identify new problems and propose novel, if not easy, solutions, most famously in auto safety and mass transportation; urban decay and the corrosive effects of racism; and the preservation and development of architecturally distinctive federal buildings......
..Then, on the day that November when President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, he told every official he could find that the federal government must take custody of Lee Harvey Oswald to keep him alive to learn about the killing. No one listened....
...He returned to Harvard to protect his tenure in 1975, but moved that year to the United Nations as United States ambassador.
There he answered the United States' third world critics bluntly, often contemptuously.
In his brief tenure he called Idi Amin, the president of Uganda, a ''racist murderer,'' and denounced the General Assembly for passing a resolution equating Zionism with racism: ''the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction.'' After eight months of struggles with Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who wanted a less confrontational approach, he resigned in February 1976. ....
But he quickly came to believe that the Soviet Union was crumbling. In Newsweek in 1979 he focused on its ethnic tensions. In January 1980, he told the Senate: ''The Soviet Union is a seriously troubled, even sick society. The indices of economic stagnation and even decline are extraordinary. The indices of social disorder -- social pathology is not too strong a term -- are even more so.'' He added, ''The defining event of the decade might well be the breakup of the Soviet empire.''
It was against that changed perception that he was sharply critical of vast increases in military spending, which, combined with the Reagan tax cuts, produced deficits that he charged were intended to starve domestic spending. He called a 1983 Reagan proposal for cutting Social Security benefits a ''breach of faith'' with the elderly, and worked out a rescue package that kept the program solvent for at least a decade into the 21st century.
....Quarreled With White House
After loyally serving four presidents, he quarreled with those in the White House while he was in the Senate. When he arrived in 1977, he found President Carter too soft in dealing with the Soviet Union and indifferent to its evil nature.
He also scorned the 1983 invasion of Grenada, the 1984 mining of harbors in Nicaragua and the 1989 invasion of Panama as violations of international law, and voted against authorizing President George H. W. Bush to make war against Iraq. It was not enough, he wrote in his book ''On the Law of Nations'' in 1990, for the United States to be strong enough to get away with such actions. The American legacy of international legal norms of state behavior, he wrote, is ''a legacy not to be frittered away.''
But probably his worst relations with a president came when Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton sought passage of national health insurance.
Certainly, the failure of health care legislation was not primarily Mr. Moynihan's responsibility, but he had become chairman of the Finance Committee in 1993, and health care fell within its jurisdiction. He said the administration should take on welfare reform legislation first, and carped on television about their health plan, quickly fixing on the role of teaching hospitals as the biggest issue in health care. But otherwise he waited for Mr. Packwood and Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the Republican leader, to propose a compromise. Mr. Dole had decided all-out opposition was the better course for his party, and they never did.
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey03272003.html (The Real Moynihan) and....
Quote:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pi..._Tears_DV.html
...In a secret cable to Kissinger on January 23, 1976, the United States Ambassador to the IN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, boasted about the 'considerable progress' he had made in blocking UN action on a number of issues related to the developing world, and he mentioned East Timor. This, he explained, was part of 'a basic foreign policy goal, that of breaking up the massive blocs of nations, mostly new nations, which for so long had been arrayed against us in international forums'. Later Moynihan wrote, 'The United States wished things to turn out as they did [in East Timor], and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.'"
Moynihan also made clear that he understood the nature of his achievement. He referred to an admission by the Indonesian puppet 'deputy governor' of East Timor, Francisco Lopez de Cruz, that 60,000 people had already died by February 1976 and acknowledged that this was '10 per cent of the population, almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War'... In 1980 Moynihan was the keynote speaker at a conference organised by the Committee for United Nations Integrity, which denounced the United Nations as 'no longer the guardian of social justice, human rights and equality among nations' because it is 'perverted by irrelevant political machinations' and is 'in danger of becoming a force against peace itself'.
In the week of the Indonesian invasion, while he was carrying out his assignment to undermine UN efforts on behalf of the people of East Timor, Moynihan was awarded the highest honour of the International League for the Rights of Man (now the International League for Human Rights) for his role as 'one of the most forthright advocates of human rights on the national and international scene'."....
|
...while my pick for the democrat who I most admire....his background and accomplishments highlighted in this thread:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=117353">Is America's Response to Death of NOLA & Pat Robertsonized Fed Gov,another Huey Long?</a>
....was described as follows in his 1935 NY Times obituary:
Quote:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlongH.htm
Huey P. Long, obituary, New York Times (11th September, 1935)
.....It is to Senator Long as a public man, rather than as a dashing personality, that the thoughts of Americans should chiefly turn as his tragic death extinguishe the envy. What he did and what he promised to do are full of political instruction and also of warning. In his own State of Louisiana he showed how it is possible to destroy self-government while maintaining its ostensible and legal form. He made himself an unquestioned dictator, though a State Legislature was still elected by a nominally free people, as was also a Governor, who was, however, nothing but a dummy for Huey Long. In reality. Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man.
If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way.
No one will set himself up as an avowed dictator, but if he can succeed in dictating everything, the name does not matter. Laws and Constitutions guaranteeing liberty and individual rights may remain on the statute books, but the life will have gone out of them.......
|
.....if the criteria is who accomplished more, during their political career, to improve the lives of more people....and I think that is the "deal breaker" for fairly evaluating anyone who we've elected.....
....I think that the NY Times got it wrong, in the way they described the accomplisments of both Huey P. Long, and Daniel P. Moynihan.
We live in political landscape where many revere the memory of a US president who said:
Quote:
...The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help....
|
.....if you agree with that, and you've read my posted political priorities... what would be the basis for a political discussion?
|