Nancy Pelosi has a problem

[Marvelous Marv]

Warning: Those of you who consider the past to be irrelevant should stop reading now. Or you can simply read the emphasized text.
************************************************************************************************************

Nancy Pelosi has a problem. An eerily familiar problem, and it starts like this:

Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.

Nancy Pelosi

Uh-oh. Compare her words to this quote:

Mine will be the most ethical administration in the history of the republic!

President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992.


A Google search of those words provided an irresistible refresher. [Disclaimer: My personal comments are interspersed with facts and opinions plagiarized from my search.] Less than half an hour after Clinton was sworn in, it was decreed that his top aides would be banned from lobbying any agency of the U.S. government for five years after leaving office. They would be forever barred from lobbying on behalf of any foreign government. He wanted to “send a signal that we are going to change politics as usual.”

At the end of his administration, Clinton revoked his first executive order and lifted the phony ban on the future lobbying activities of his administration’s top officials.

White House mouthpiece Jake Siewert explained, in his usual disingenuous way, that the order was no longer needed because there wasn’t much question of Clinton appointees exerting influence with members of President Bush’s incoming administration.White House Counsel Beth Nolan went further: “The main policies underlying the executive order no longer apply when there is a change of parties at the White House. Because special access is no longer a concern, the special measures contained in the executive order are no longer necessary.”

Got it? The ban existed when there really weren't any former Clinton administration officials. Once there were a ton of them, the ban was lifted. You can't be too vigilant in regard to removing laws that are no longer needed.

Howard Paster, the administration's congressional liaison, promptly walked through the revolving door between public service and private lobbying to emerge as chairman and chief executive of Hill & Knowlton, the same lobbying and PR firm he was with before joining the White House. Word was that his new salary was somewhere in the million-dollar range.

Roy Neel, deputy White House chief of staff, became president of the United States Telephone Association, which coordinates the lobbies of local and regional phone companies. His new job paid $500,000 a year.

There is no shortage of other examples of why Clinton’s first official act was “no longer necessary.”

A short while after this search was done, an e-mail arrived in which it was suggested that, due to the election, Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove could and should all be impeached. This scenario, and a recaptured memory of host's triumphant post that George W. Bush sent Ken Lay a birthday card (proving without a doubt that Bush actually KNEW Ken Lay) provoked a few comparisons regarding politicians caught red-handed:

Richard Nixon--out in disgrace
Teddy Kennedy--"Liberal Lush, uhh, Lion" of the Senate

Mark Foley--hiding somewhere
Gerry Studds--remained in Congress

Randy Cunningham--in jail
Alcee Hastings--still in office. Much more on this later

The search for the keywords "Clinton" and "most ethical administration" yielded, among other names, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros. Five cabinet probes were instituted. Three were into the financial affairs of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown who had been slated by the president to head his reelection bid. Another was in regard to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

Nothing turned up in regard to any other administration having three cabinet members investigated.

None of this, however, tops the sentencing of the former national security adviser to the President of the United States, Sandy Berger. Berger was fined $50,000 given two years probation and had his security clearance removed for three years after he admitted destroying classified documents related to the Clinton administration's evaluation of the threat of Al Qaeda.


Initially saying his actions were an ''honest mistake,' Berger later pleaded guilty in April to a misdemeanor of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration."

The Washington Post:

"He admitted to stuffing copies of documents in his coat jacket as he left the National Archives and then destroying some at his office and pretending he had never possessed them. Berger had been reviewing the records about the Clinton administration's response to reports of terrorist threats in 2000 as he was preparing to respond to questions from the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

At the loud insistence of Democratic members of Congress, Berger and others were given access to these documents in the national archives so that they would have clear recollection of their actions and could testify faithfully to this important commission. Berger used the opportunity to remove documents in his suit (reportedly he stuffed a few in his socks as well), take the documents to his office and his home, destroy some of them and then deny it. Apologists for Berger point out that "no documents were lost” in that there were existing copies of all the documents destroyed. A half-truth. In fact the documents that were destroyed had unique handwritten notes in the margins that because of Mr. Berger's nefarious work will be lost forever to historians.

One can only imagine how damaging those notes had to have been to the Clinton administration, if Berger was willing to outright steal and destroy them.

Now for the reason why history can not be disregarded by the thinking person:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D

Speaker Pelosi's Impending Intelligence Failure
By J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss 09 Nov 2006

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is in line to make history as the first female Speaker—and second in line of succession for the presidency—when the new Congress convenes in January. As with any election, a wide variety of issues factored into the dynamics of this year's midterms. For us, however, the just-concluded campaign, like every federal election, was fundamentally about national security. The federal government's principal task is providing for the defense of the nation, without which justice, welfare, and all the other blessings of liberty enjoyed inside the various states are, at best, aspirations.

With majority status in the "people's house" comes a share in responsibility for the security of the Republic. This is why we are so concerned about a shadow which darkens presumptive Speaker Pelosi's triumphant morning, a shadow which will only grow longer if she allows it to begin appearing prominently in the media coverage of the global war on terrorism, metastasizing into her first "intelligence failure" even before she takes the gavel from outgoing Speaker Hastert. That is the shadow of Alcee Lamar Hastings, the reelected Democratic Representative from Florida's 23rd District.

Mr. Hastings was, in the outgoing 109th Congress, the second-ranked Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But the Washington Post's Charles Babington first reported more than a year ago, in a story that has never been denied (indeed, it has been confirmed in the congressman's hometown newspaper, the Miami Herald) that Ms. Pelosi plans to replace the committee's current ranking Democrat, California Representative Jane Harman, with Mr. Hastings, who would be installed as committee chairman when the 110th Congress begins. The move would be a payback to the Congressional Black Caucus, to whose support Pelosi owes her election as Minority Leader and whose members she angered by picking Ms. Harman to be ranking member over Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop in 2003. The incoming Speaker must also mollify the Black Caucus for having pushed Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (he of the frozen cash) off the Ways and Means Committee.

We have difficulty accepting that Mr. Hastings has been allowed by Ms. Pelosi to venture anywhere near national security matters, much less onto a field as vital as the Intelligence Committee, which exercises oversight of organizations ranging from Central Intelligence Agency to the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Department, including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. That Mr. Hastings is employed by the United States of America, and is not a guest a federal penitentiary, is itself cause for wonder.

Mr. Hastings's own website says this about his pre-Congressional background: "Known to many as 'Judge,' Congressman Hastings has distinguished himself as an attorney, civil rights activist, judge, and now Member of Congress. Appointed by President Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American Federal Judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years."

What this autobiography omits are the reasons Hastings' judicial tenure, normally a life appointment, was cut short after only a decade. Barely two years into office, "Judge" Hastings accepted a $150,000 bribe in exchange for giving a lenient sentence to two swindlers, then lied in subsequent sworn testimony about the incident. The case involved two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, who had been convicted in 1980 on 21 counts of racketeering. Together with attorney William Borders Jr., Hastings, who presided over the Romanos' case, hatched a plot to solicit a bribe from the brothers. In exchange for a $150,000 cash payment to him, Hastings would return some $845,000 of their $1.2 million in seized assets after they served their three-year jail terms.

Taped conversations between Hastings and Borders confirmed that the judge was a party to the plot. Hastings was also criminally prosecuted for bribery, but his accomplice Borders went to prison rather than testify against him. Hastings was acquitted thanks to Borders' silence. Borders was then pardoned by President Clinton, confirming the wisdom of his refusal to testify. In a remarkable display of chutzpah, Borders then applied for reinstatement to the District of Columbia Bar, claiming that Clinton's federal pardon eliminated his local disbarment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not agree, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. To former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, Borders' case had a spiritual quality to it. "Being pardoned by the president is like being pardoned by Jesus," Fauntroy sermonized. Thankfully, the Supremes evidently disagreed with this "theology."]

"Be assured that I'm going to be a judge for life," Mr. Hastings told reporters in 1983 after his acquittal. But the arguments that swayed a Miami jury did not sway the Congress. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a lopsided vote of 413 to 3. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him on eight articles of impeachment by well over the required two-thirds majority in 1989. Thus Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings' fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan's John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.

Article I, section 3, clause 7, of the Constitution reads as follows:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...."Alas, in its vote convicting and removing Hastings, the Senate neglected to include language barring him from seeking future office. Hastings was promptly elected to Congress in 1992 as the representative of a new, specially-designed majority-black district.

Since shamelessly taking his seat in the very House that overwhelmingly impeached him, Congressman Hastings has not appeared chastened by his scandal-plagued past. Reports circulate that the "Judge" is the subject of speculation about a conflict of interest. At issue this time is the fact that Hastings added to his Congressional payroll one Patricia Williams, described as a "close personal friend" and former attorney. Williams represented the then-judge at his bribery trial and impeachment hearings, but was herself disbarred in June 1992 for misuse of clients' funds. Mr. Hastings is said to owe Mr. Williams substantial lawyer's fees for her services in the eighties—over $500,000 according to some estimates—and some see his decision to make her a staff assistant as a form of debt-settling at the public's expense. Ms. Williams' annual salary as "staff assistant" is reported to be an impressive $129,000. Here are two other publicly reported annual salaries from Mr. Hastings' office which are quite telling: Vanessa Griddine, staff assistant (scheduler), $71,000; Fred Turner, chief of staff: $67,200.
Ms. Griddine must be one heck of a scheduler, as she earns nearly four thousand dollars a year more than Mr. Turner, the Congressman's chief of staff. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reports that Ms. Griddine, not Mr. Turner, recently accompanied Hastings on a trip to Portugal and Spain—earlier she had traveled with him to Brussels, at a cost to taxpayers of over $14,000. Doubtless her presence is constantly required to help arrange last-minute scheduling.

Meanwhile, the Miami Herald reported this past June that Hastings is one of a dozen chronic absentees in the current Congress—which raises questions about Ms. Griddine's scheduling acumen. The American Policy Center (APC), a conservative group, has called attention to the fact that, in recent years, Hastings has been under investigation for other ethics violations by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The APC
reports that Hastings has also been investigated by the Florida Elections Commission and the Federal Election Commission for various charges of impropriety. Political Money Line, a watchdog group that tracks money in national politics, points out that Hastings ranks second among all American lawmakers in the number of taxpayer-funded trips he has taken since 1994, at a price tag of over $152,000 (not counting expenses incurred by his accompanying "assistants"). Many of those trips were taken on behalf of the OSCE to "monitor elections." The irony of one of Congress's most corrupt members being tasked to monitor electoral fraud should presumably shock even Hastings' original nominator, election supervisor par excellence Jimmy Carter.

Back to the present. The disgraced judge-cum-legislator's record on national security—the most basic criterion for leading the intelligence committee at any time, much less in the midst of a war on terror—has not been reassuring. In the 109th Congress alone, Mr. Hastings voted consistently against key counterterrorism tools, including the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution, and the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. He has been an
opponent of the trial by military commissions of unlawful terrorist combatants as well as border control, NSA communications intercepts, and terrorist financing tracking measures.

Mr. Hastings' dubious record contrasts greatly with that of the centrist Ms. Harman. While highly critical at times of the Bush administration's conduct of intelligence and counterterrorism operations, Ms. Harman has displayed a keen understanding of intelligence issues, and has introduced quite sensible legislation on national security concerns, including government-wide security clearances and enhanced seaport security.
With the serious international security challenges faced by Americans, the last thing we need is more bitter partisanship. Nancy Pelosi is set to make history as our first female Speaker. But what history will record of her speakership, should she choose to vault Mr. Hastings over Ms. Harman, is that her legacy had precious little to do with providing for the common defense of the Republic, and too much to do with shameless pandering.

J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison

University. Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Of course, some who frequent this forum will say that anything Clinton did (or didn't do) is irrelevant. In two more years, will Bush, Cheney, and Rove receive the same largesse?

Furthermore, should Pelosi appoint Hastings? Is his record, like Clinton's immaterial? Does the past perfomance of Democratic administrations give you confidence that the Democrats will clean up Congress in the next two years?

Be prepared: For every comment along the lines of "Well, so what? Your guy is worse!" I will remind you that Hasting is considered for a CURRENT position. I will also post quotes from ratbastid and shakran that seem to make them uncomfortable at times. Including my personal favorite,

Originally Posted by ratbastid 2/18/2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

[dc_dux]

LOL.....now this is one that really belongs in Tilted Paranoid .

should Pelosi appoint Hastings?

BTW, Pelosi doesnt appoint anyone as chair. The committee chairs will be elected by the Dem caucus. It is generally pro forma, with the most senior member being elected as chair. Jane Harmon, the sr Dem on the committee, has said she does not intend to seek the chairmanship. And, while Hastings' past record is irrefutable, he has done his homework on the current state of US intelligence.

With the serious international security challenges faced by Americans, the last thing we need is more bitter partisanship

which is exactly what this article does.

In the 109th Congress alone, Mr. Hastings voted consistently against key counterterrorism tools, including the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution, and the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act.

Hastings and many Dems voted against these bills because they cede power to the executive branch which is beyond what they believe is Constitutional.

You may not agree, and would rather call it "soft on terrorism", but many Americans hold the same view as Hastings.

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

A Google search of those words provided an irresistible refresher. [Disclaimer: My personal comments are interspersed with facts and opinions plagiarized from my search.] Less than half an hour after Clinton was sworn in, it was decreed that his top aides would be banned from lobbying any agency of the U.S. government for five years after leaving office. They would be forever barred from lobbying on behalf of any foreign government. He wanted to “send a signal that we are going to change politics as usual.”

At the end of his administration, Clinton revoked his first executive order and lifted the phony ban on the future lobbying activities of his administration’s top officials.

White House mouthpiece Jake Siewert explained, in his usual disingenuous way, that the order was no longer needed because there wasn’t much question of Clinton appointees exerting influence with members of President Bush’s incoming administration.White House Counsel Beth Nolan went further: “The main policies underlying the executive order no longer apply when there is a change of parties at the White House. Because special access is no longer a concern, the special measures contained in the executive order are no longer necessary.”

Got it? The ban existed when there really weren't any former Clinton administration officials. Once there were a ton of them, the ban was lifted. You can't be too vigilant in regard to removing laws that are no longer needed.

Are you sure that there weren't any former Clinton aides that left their post from 1992-2000 when the ban was in effect?

And the five years would have been up in 2005, so I don't understand why it matters too much today.

We will see what Pelosi does, but until she makes the announcement it sounds like random speculation.

[dc_dux]

The "revolving door" between government and industry or lobbying is hardly a Dem phenonima:

Examples (mostly from the last 6 years).

The bar has been set so low by the Repubs, its hard to imagine the Dems will be any worse.

And that doesnt even address the Abramoff scandal, the worst in recent history.

[_God_]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

LOL.....now this is one that really belongs in Tilted Paranoid .

Because there is no chance that Hastings will head the committee? We will know the validity of your comment in a couple of months.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

BTW, Pelosi doesnt appoint anyone as chair. The committee chairs will be elected by the Dem caucus.

It is your prediction then that Harmon will not be REPLACED with Hastings with the approval of Pelosi?

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It is generally pro forma, with the most senior member being elected as chair. Jane Harmon, the sr Dem on the committee, has said she does not intend to seek the chairmanship.

It would not be a stretch to attribute that to a problem regarding the speaker-elect.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And, while Hastings' past record is irrefutable, he has done his homework on the current state of US intelligence.

"Irrefutable." That's really good. Duke Cunningham should ask for a pardon. His record is "irrefutable," too.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

With the serious international security challenges faced by Americans, the last thing we need is more bitter partisanship which is exactly what this article does.

Pointing out the abominable (oops, "irrefutable") record of Hastings is "bitter partisanship," but Abramoff is fair game. How impeccably logical.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official..." ~Theodore Roosevelt

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would approve of Alcee Hastings? Jimmy Carter? The gun control leanings of Nancy Pelosi?

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Are you sure that there weren't any former Clinton aides that left their post from 1992-2000 when the ban was in effect?

It's common knowledge that there were, especially if by "left," you mean "were kicked out." Did Marv say otherwise?

Originally Posted by ASU2003

And the five years would have been up in 2005, so I don't understand why it matters too much today.

And THAT is the problem! You don't see why it matters when laws are changed at a time when the public is unlikely to notice. Does it matter how many pardons Clinton granted, when some of them would have been out of jail by now?

Originally Posted by ASU2003

We will see what Pelosi does, but until she makes the announcement it sounds like random speculation.

Speculation, yes. Random, no.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The "revolving door" between government and industry or lobbying is hardly a Dem phenonima:

Examples (mostly from the last 6 years).

The bar has been set so low by the Repubs, its hard to imagine the Dems will be any worse.

And that doesnt even address the Abramoff scandal, the worst in recent history.

Ding ding ding!! We have a winner in the "So what, your guy is worse" competition!

[Willravel]

Are you suggesting that Nancy will seduce a young, impressionable intern, then lie about it?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by _God_

Because there is no chance that Hastings will head the committee? We will know the validity of your comment in a couple of months.

It is your prediction then that Harmon will not be REPLACED with Hastings with the approval of Pelosi?

It would not be a stretch to attribute that to a problem regarding the speaker-elect.

Pointing out the abominable (oops, "irrefutable") record of Hastings is "bitter partisanship," but Abramoff is fair game. How impeccably logical.

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would approve of Alcee Hastings? Jimmy Carter? The gun control leanings of Nancy Pelosi?

I predict Hasings will absolutely beoome the chair of the Intel Committee if Jane Harmon turns it down. I dont see how its a problem for Pelosi.

He wouldnt be my choice, but Hastings is recognized by most current members of the Intel Committee as being very knowledgable on intel issues and unlike you, most dont hold his past against him.

Duke Cunningham should ask for a pardon. His record is "irrefutable," too.

You are aware that Cunningham not only abused his own Congressional office, but also allegedly used the staff of the Intel Committee in his bribery scandal. The Repub chair of the Committee refused to subpoena him as part of the committee's invesitgation:

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/...ease101706.pdf

Im' not a fan of presidential pardons and that goes for Ford's pardon of Nixon, Bush Sr's pardon of Cap Weinberger and the Iran-Contra crowd or Clinton and Bush Jr. pardons of guys who were big financial contributors.

As to Roosevelt....being God, feel free to ask him yourself.

Ding ding ding!! We have a winner in the "So what, your guy is worse" competition!

We do have a winner and it was the Dems. Most would agree that the election results were due in large part to the ethics and corruption of the Repubs. The challenge for the Dems is to to learn from this, for their past is not much better.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

Are you suggesting that Nancy will seduce a young, impressionable intern, then lie about it?

Thanks will, now I have to go find me some brain bleach.

[ratbastid]

I love how Pelosi is suddenly the right-wing's new boogeyman. Well, boogeywoman.

That's Saddam Hussein's old job.

[Elphaba]

I thought this thread was going to reveal Nancy's involvement with a Lesbian for hire and the use of heroin. I'm kinda disappointed.

[dc_dux]

The right wing blogs are Desperately Seeking Nancy:

Can No One Find a Pic of Pelosi in the Gay Parade? We Need it Now!!!

"I cannot believe no has a photo of the witch next to the NAMBLA president in the San Fransico parade."

"It would figure that a fag would cover her face in the photo (not that I want to see that hideous thing), but at least her name is on the gay parade vehicle."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1732936/posts

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I thought this thread was going to reveal Nancy's involvement with a Lesbian for hire and the use of heroin. I'm kinda disappointed.

down to one last batch of brain bleach now. thanks elph.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Warning: Those of you who consider the past to be irrelevant should stop reading now. Or you can simply read the emphasized text.
************************************************************************************************************

Marv, I should have obeyed this suggestion.

Nancy Pelosi has a problem. An eerily familiar problem, and it starts like this:

Nancy Pelosi

Uh-oh. Compare her words to this quote:

President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992.

That's just idiotic. Because Pelosi said something that someone else once said, she will by default do exactly what he did? Who believes that? By that logic, if you claim you didn't murder someone, you're a scumbag because OJ once said the same thing.


We really don't need to read further, folks. This is even more absurd than Shakran's law, if that's possible.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I love how Pelosi is suddenly the right-wing's new boogeyman. Well, boogeywoman.

That's Saddam Hussein's old job.

there's nothing new about it.

[reconmike]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I thought this thread was going to reveal Nancy's involvement with a Lesbian for hire and the use of heroin. I'm kinda disappointed.

Would that matter? The democrats would still reelect her,
Kind of like a mayor being a convicted crack smoker, doing prison time then getting out only to be reelected by the democrat base of his city.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by reconmike

Would that matter? The democrats would still reelect her,
Kind of like a mayor being a convicted crack smoker, doing prison time then getting out only to be reelected by the democrat base of his city.

Republicans re-elected someone who started the biggest clusterfuck since Vietnam, what's your point?

[reconmike]

My point being is the democrats will put a convicted felon on the ballot and democrats will still vote for him.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by reconmike

My point being is the democrats will put a convicted felon on the ballot and democrats will still vote for him.

After he did his time. Debt paid, all of that. He won without his own vote, evidently.

As long as we're painting with broad brushes: are you telling me that Republicans don't believe that criminals can be rehabilitated? That, as far as Republicans are concerned, once a criminal, always a criminal?

You want to talk about criminal behavior, how about the Republican House leadership aiding and abetting child sexual abuse for at least three years? Or the largest case of congressional graft in US history? What's the excuse for that? Alcoholism all around.

Or how about Rush Limbaugh? He's an addict just like Marion Barry (the mayor whose name you appear to be having a hard time remembering). He never even served time for his crimes. Yet swarms of ditto-heads slavishly follow his opinion about things. Is it only Democrat criminals who can't be reformed?

This is a cute little troll, but you actually have no ground to stand on with this point.

[stevo]

From wikipedia -

Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. (born March 6, 1936) served as Democratic mayor of Washington, D.C. from 1979 to 1991. His arrest in 1990 on drug charges precluded him from seeking reelection that year. After his conviction on drug charges, Barry served 6 months in prison, but was elected to the D.C. council in 1992 and ultimately to the mayoralty in 1994, serving a fourth term from 1995 to 1999. Today, Barry serves on the Council of the District of Columbia, representing Ward Eight, which comprises Anacostia and Congress Heights. He is also serving three years probation for misdemeanor charges of failing to pay federal and local taxes, and continues to receive drug counseling after testing positive for cocaine and marijuana in October 2005.

Rehabilitated? if thats what you want to call it. I call it representing his constituents.

[Willravel]

Instead of tit for tat comparing the mistakes of both parties, why can't we just all vote independant? Some people are so stuborn.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by stevo

From wikipedia - Rehabilitated? if thats what you want to call it. I call it representing his constituents.

I actually didn't say Barry is rehabilitated. I was responding very literally to the (completely absurd) post I quoted. I intended to demonstrate that the "oh yeah well YOU" game can go both ways.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I actually didn't say Barry is rehabilitated. I was responding very literally to the (completely absurd) post I quoted. I intended to demonstrate that the "oh yeah well YOU" game can go both ways.

So you are NOT disputing the fact that the democrats will put a convicted felon on the ballot and democrats will still vote for him?

[filtherton]

I wonder what ollie north is doing right now?

[Charlatan]

Do we really need to play this game... isn't there something else we could be doing.

I could care less if someone is convicted of drug use. How many politicians are drinkers? Do we witch hunt all of them?

Move on. Both Limbagh and Barry appear to be doing well in rehab. To me, the fact that their drug uses are both illegal is barely relevant.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by stevo

So you are NOT disputing the fact that the democrats will put a convicted felon on the ballot and democrats will still vote for him?

Stevo.... I dont think Marion Barry is under consideration as the next chair of the House Intel Committee.

Nor do I believe that one's past is an indication of future performance. Consider a recent member of the Intel Committeen now in jail - Duke Cunningham, all-american boy, former navy pilot (supposedly the model for the Tom Cruise character in Top Gun) - served on the Intel Committtee for several terms, with security clearances, all the while using Intel Committee staff and resources in a $millions bribery scam involving defense contractors.

[shakran]

considering the current president is an alcoholic, if I were a republican I'd be keeping very quiet about bashing people who have addiction problems.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We do have a winner and it was the Dems. Most would agree that the election results were due in large part to the ethics and corruption of the Repubs. The challenge for the Dems is to to learn from this, for their past is not much better.

Which makes it so utterly amazing that you don't see a problem with Hastings.

Or utterly hypocritical.

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I love how Pelosi is suddenly the right-wing's new boogeyman. Well, boogeywoman.

That's Saddam Hussein's old job.

And what was it that I said about Nancy Pelosi?

Thanks. I thought so.

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Republicans re-elected someone who started the biggest clusterfuck since Vietnam, what's your point?

Originally Posted by ratbastid, 2-18-2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You want to talk about criminal behavior, how about the Republican House leadership aiding and abetting child sexual abuse for at least three years? Or the largest case of congressional graft in US history? What's the excuse for that? Alcoholism all around.

Originally Posted by ratbastid, 2-18-2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Or how about Rush Limbaugh? He's an addict just like Marion Barry (the mayor whose name you appear to be having a hard time remembering). He never even served time for his crimes. Yet swarms of ditto-heads slavishly follow his opinion about things. Is it only Democrat criminals who can't be reformed?

Originally Posted by ratbastid, 2-18-2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Originally Posted by filtherton

I wonder what ollie north is doing right now?

Originally Posted by ratbastid, 2-18-2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Originally Posted by shakran

considering the current president is an alcoholic, if I were a republican I'd be keeping very quiet about bashing people who have addiction problems.

Originally Posted by shakran

No, I don't. What I question is why you and others keep bringing Clinton up when someone points out wrongdoing by the current administration. I don't care if Clinton was a serial killer while in office - that wouldn't excuse the current candidate from responsibility for his actions. The fact that you guys keep bringing Clinton up shows me that you KNOW there's no defense for what the Bush administration has done, and you're trying to misdirect people so that they can't SEE that there's no excuse.

But you care if someone drank a lot of alcohol years before he took office. You might want to talk to ratbastid about debts being paid. To reply to what your point MIGHT have been, I wouldn't want Bush working as a bartender, and it would be equally unwise to put Hastings in a position of trust.

Oh yeah:

Originally Posted by ratbastid, 2-18-2006

I'd LOVE to see some actual argumentation around here. But as long as certain factions keep themselves safely on the "Oh yeah, well you!" card, there's zero chance of that.

Since it has been lost in the shuffle, I'll repeat:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Furthermore, should Pelosi appoint Hastings? Is his record, like Clinton's immaterial? Does the past perfomance of Democratic administrations give you confidence that the Democrats will clean up Congress in the next two years?

So far, notwithstanding the "Oh yeah? What about your guy?" responses from the same people who consider such statements unreasonable when they concern Clinton, the answer from Democrats seems to be that Hastings is the man for the job.

Ethics be damned.

[Charlatan]

Thank you ALL for not heeding my warning.

Tit for tat is boring. Regardless of who says it.

We all know where this is going so let's just put a stop to it now.

Thanks.