View Single Post
Old 10-21-2007, 09:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
host
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 
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?
host is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360