Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-21-2007, 02:12 AM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
A Symptom of Our Divide...That One Faction Sees no Difference: Hsu vs. Abramoff?

I just spotted this tonight...over on the "Where's the old Heated Debate?" thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=120
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
I was thinking (yeah...I know, bad Idea), but for me at least the lack of serious debate comes down to two things:

1) the vast majority of people agree for the most part with my stance, thus making debate pointless.

2) those who do not agree have debated with me on the issues, and are extremely negative for the most part, making debate again...pointless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Necrosis
Perhaps there is yet another reason.

A search of posts containing the word "Abramoff":
Showing results 1 to 40 of 91

A search of posts by Host containing the word "Abramoff":
Showing results 1 to 40 of 58

In these posts, Host was able to delve out incredibly minute details of public figures he dislikes. Contrast that to a search for posts by Host containing the word "Hsu":
Showing results 1 to 3 of 3
Unfortunately, none of these refer to NORMAN Hsu.

A man who can tell you Abramoff's uncle's shoe size, and who posts at length of real and imagined transgressions by Republican politicians, does not stimulate me to debate if he has not heard of Norman Hsu. For that matter, a large majority of other posters on this forum has no interest in lawbreakers who are not named Abramoff, Cheney, Rove, or Bush.

Why in the world would anyone consider debating people with such closed mindsets? Perhaps one of Host's lengthy posts, this time dishing on Norman Hsu, would stimulate animated debate.
Here are a couple of the reported examples of differences I see between democrats accepting donations from Norman Hsu, and republicans accepting donations from Jack Abramoff:

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/us...ics/16hsu.html
Fund-Raiser’s Wallet Matched His Need to Please

By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and MIKE McINTIRE
Published: September 16, 2007

.....He gave generously, showering money on a wide array of national, state and local politicians. But he stood out in the symbiotic world of campaign finance because <h3>he appeared to want nothing in return other than a few powerful friends</h3>, according to Democratic fund-raisers in New York and California who knew him.

What those friends did not know, however, was that Mr. Hsu was running from a 15-year-old arrest warrant for a fraud conviction and a hidden past of bankruptcy. And his political donations helped to bolster his image as a man to do business with.

He was a compulsive name-dropper who even took time to befriend campaign workers, pulling strings to get them reservations at tough-table restaurants like Nobu in Manhattan.......

Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss
By Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 13, 2007

....Before boarding an eastbound train later that day, Hsu apparently typed the one-page note and sent it by FedEx; it was received last Thursday.

Among the recipients was the Innocence Project, the New York-based organization co-founded by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld that seeks to prove the innocence of people in prison. <h3>Hsu was one of the organization's donors.</h3>

"We did receive a letter from him, the contents of which I don't want to divulge out of respect for his privacy," Eric Ferrero, the organization's communications director, told The Times on Friday.

Ferrero said the Innocence Project forwarded the letter to Hsu's defense attorneys in San Francisco and to the California attorney general's office. Hsu helped sponsor a dinner for the organization in April, Ferrero said, describing him as a "strong and committed supporter."....
Most importantly...no political "quid pro quo" has been demonstrated...related to donations to democrats from Norman Hsu. No democrats have been found to know...or should have known...when accepting donations from Hsu...that he was widely reported to be of deficient character or motive, or that he had a histroy of expecting or promoting a political...or any favor in exchange for a donation....

I find no reporting that any democrat denied knowing or receiving money from Hsu...if they indeed did know him, or accepted money from him.

Less importantly, but still significant....democrats did not control both congress and the executive branch when they associated with and accepted money from Tsu. No Tsu associates were appointed to government positions by democrats.

Contrast all of the above with the Ambramoff situation. Abramoff's lobbying business consisted of charging huge fees to the wealthy garment business owners who controlled the US Territory...the Northern Mariannas pacific islands, for the purpose of drafting and/or preserving federal legislation that permitted the Northern Mariannas to run it's own immigration operation, and to keep hourly wages below US mainland minimums and "guest worker" rregulations worded so as to maximize both the profits of and the dominance of these workers lives...to a maximum advantage of the Islands' factory owners.

Abramoff did this by providing vacation junkets and contributions to influential legislators, and by entertaining key DOJ officials in his corporate professional sports "sky box" seats at metro DC area sports arenas and stadiums.... Abramoff succeeded in convincing the Bush admin. to:

Quote:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Docume...ween_0112.html
Documents show extent of ties between Abramoff and Bush appointee

John Byrne
Published: January 12, 2006

Print This | Email This

Patrick PizzellaA senior Labor Department official appointed by President Bush in 2001 has more detailed ties to fallen conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff than previously believed, according to documents reviewed by RAW STORY.

The official, Patrick Pizzella, was an Abramoff lieutenant who lobbied on behalf of at least five clients that are now the subject of investigations: E-Lottery, Naftasib, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, the Commonwealth of the Marianas Islands and the Saginaw Chippewas. Pizzella paired with Abramoff at Washington lobby shop Preston Gates Ellis and Rouvelas Meeds, working together on more than $21 million in accounts.

Rediscovered records show that Pizzella lobbied on behalf of a Bahamian company the Washington Post revealed to be a front organization for a Russian oil business. They also show that Pizzella arranged numerous trips for conservative activists with Abramoff and another Preston Gates lobbyist, David Safavian, to a U.S. territory in the Pacific, paid for by the territory.

Abramoff and Safavian have since been arrested on charges stemming from a federal investigation into Abramoff’s lobbying practices. Pizzella, who worked on several of the same accounts, remains a Bush Administration official and has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Abramoff pleaded guilty to various charges in December.

Pizzella could not be reached for comment.

Pizzella lobbied for Bahama front group

A newly discovered Senate lobbying record filed in 1997 (PDF file) lists Pizzella as "Director of Coalitions" for Chelsea Commercial, a purported Bahamas based organization lobbying for Russian trade liberalization. The Washington Post revealed last April that Chelsea Commercial appeared to have been little more than a front group for a Russian oil and gas company, Naftasib.

Chelsea Commercial, according to the Post, underwrote a trip taken by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Pizzella colleague Jack Abramoff by funneling money through a Washington nonprofit. The nonprofit paid for a trip taken by DeLay along with Abramoff and former DeLay aide Ed Buckham during which the lobbyists met with DeLay and key Russian officials.

The Post did not say whether other individuals from the lobbying firm –- including Pizzella -- made the trip, though it would seem to have been limited to Abramoff and Buckham.

Pizzella, however, does appear to have played a significant role on the Chelsea account; only Abramoff and one other individual on the account are listed on the 1997 filings as "government affairs counselors," whereas Pizzella is the only individual to carry the title "director." Lobbyists often take on larger titles at lobby shops – with many carrying titles of "director" -- though it appears notable that Abramoff, who obviously had a large role, does not receive a superlative appellation on the filing.

RAW STORY could find no news reports which explain Pizzella’s role on the Chelsea account. Former Abramoff associates who worked at various points with Abramoff said they were not personally familiar with Pizzella’s work.

Document shows Pizzella, Abramoff trips

A second rediscovered document shows that Abramoff and Pizzella had substantial ties while lobbying on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The same document used to report that two Democratic congressman had taken improper trips to the Northern Marianas Islands lists various trips Pizzella made to Saipan with conservative activists and opinionmakers. Given the billing statement, it is plausible that Pizzella would have known the congressmen's trips were paid for by the Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific –- in violation of House ethics rules.

The memo shows that Pizzella spared no expense during his Marianas trips. Airfare for conservative heavyweights flown at the islands' expense often topped $5,000 a head.

A 2001 report by The New Republic also indicates that Pizzella made a whirlwind number of trips with congressmen, saying he extended personal invitations to at least 11 members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal estimated that 100 representatives visited the islands during Pizzella's tenure. It's unknown who paid for these trips, or even who these congressmembers are.

According to the New Republic, Abramoff handpicked Pizzella for his Marianas lobbying team.

Pizzella's work with the Marianas has attracted the most scrutiny, particularly because the islands are notorious sweatshop havens. The Preston Gates lobbying team collected some $6.7 million from the protectorate, some $3.1 million of which was paid without a lawful contract. Preston Gates helped crush attempts to impose minimum wage laws and accrued $2 million in federal aid for the islands.

Pizzella was appointed to be a deputy labor undersecretary just months after departing Abramoff's retinue.

Abramoff cheered the appointment in a letter to the Commonwealth. Notably, Abramoff seemed to reference Pizzella’s new post in a January 2001 letter even though he wasn’t officially appointed until April 2001.

"Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department," Abramoff wrote.

The Marianas have since accused Abramoff and his staff of overcharging the islands for some $2.2 million in unsupported expenses. The charges included travel, telephone, photocopy, computer research and outside-professional fees. Pizzella was not named by auditors, though was among the most traveled members of Abramoff’s group.

RAW STORY, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking any information about contacts between Pizzella and any members of Abramoff's staff after his appointment to the Labor Department.

"Mr. Pizzella has extensive knowledge about the Abramoff operation, considering he was on their team," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics spokeswoman Naomi Seligman said. "We do not know, but certainly intend to find out, how his current position at the Labor Department helped Mr. Abramoff and clients."

Saipan's regulatory limbo has helped to fortify the bottom lines of popular U.S. clothing brands. Tommy Hilfiger, Gap, Calvin Klein and Liz Claiborne are among the labels that have benefited from the island's dearth of labor laws. The islands' minimum wage -- albeit weakly enforced -- was $3.05 an hour in 1998.

Pizzella worked on other accounts now under investigation

Along with about a dozen other lobbyists, Pizzella also advocated for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. During the three years Pizzella worked the Choctaw, they dished out $5.7 million for the work. Investigators of Abramoff's Choctaw work have since accused him of laundering funds.

Pizella and Abramoff also represented eLottery, a company that sought to sell state lottery tickets online. News reports and investigations have since shown that Abramoff arranged for the firm to quietly fund anti-gambling efforts to derail competing plans. A senior DeLay aide also communicated with Abramoff to help quash an effort to ban online gambling.
After Jack Abramoff was indicted on federal charges....President Bush...despite the fact that Abramoff had been a "Bush Pioneer".... a top campaign donor for both Bush/Cheney 2000 and 2004....and despite the fact that Abramoff's former key assistant, Susan Ralston...had for four years, been a special advisor to both the president and to his right hand, Karl Rove, and during that time, she had an office just doors down from the president's oval office, Bush declared:


<center><img src="http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/JAGWB.jpg"></center>
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/08/...ramoff-emails/
EXCLUSIVE EMAILS: Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.

The emails written by Abramoff was addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.

In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,” and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.

Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:

NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.

The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, <h2>President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”</h2>

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.
...and from this post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=21

Too bad it's "a time of war"....it makes all of it.....the outing of Plame, the hiring and naming of the key assistant to the most corrupt DC lobbyist in history, to be "special assistant to the POTUS", and his political advisor, Karl Rove, and placing her, for more than 5 years, just down the hall from the president's office: (While insisting that you don't even know the admitted felon):
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11733701
Report: Bush, Abramoff joked together
<b>President still denies knowing ex-lobbyist</b>; Vanity Fair reports otherwise
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:21 p.m. ET March 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff says President Bush knew him well enough to joke with him about weightlifting. “What are you benching, buff guy?” Abramoff said Bush asked him.

The president has said he doesn’t know Abramoff.

Abramoff said he finds it hard to believe Bush doesn’t remember the 10 or so photos he and members of his family had snapped with the president and first lady.

“He (Bush) has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail, according to Vanity Fair’s April issue being released this week. “Perhaps he has forgotten everything. Who knows?”

Abramoff pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to charges that he and a former partner, Adam Kidan, concocted a fake wire transfer to make it appear they were putting a sizable stake of their own money into a multimillion-dollar purchase of SunCruz Casinos’ gambling fleet in 2000. Abramoff also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a probe into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration.

“I had my picture taken with him, evidently,” Bush said of Abramoff on Jan. 26. “I’ve had my picture taken with a lot of people.”

“I frankly don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy,” Bush added. “I don’t know him.”

Abramoff: We met a dozen times
A few days later, Abramoff wrote to Washingtonian magazine that he had met briefly with the president nearly a dozen times and that Bush knew him well enough to make joking references to Abramoff’s family.

Abramoff told Vanity Fair that he once was invited to Bush’s Texas ranch, where he would have joined with other big Bush fund-raisers. Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, said he didn’t go because the event fell on the Sabbath.

The lobbyist said that when Bush made a speech to fund-raisers in 2003, he sat just a few feet from the president. Abramoff, the only lobbyist on the dais, was seated between Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Three former associates of Abramoff have told The Associated Press the lobbyist frequently told them he had strong ties to the White House through its deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove.

Asked about the former Abramoff associates’ accounts, the White House said Rove and Abramoff were leaders of a young Republicans group decades ago.

“Mr. Rove remembers they had met at a political event in the 1990s,” White House spokeswoman Erin Healy has said. “Since then, he would describe him as a casual acquaintance.”

According to Vanity Fair, Rove’s relationship with Abramoff was deeper.

After Bush took office, Susan Ralston, Abramoff’s administrative assistant, assumed the same post with Rove at the White House, where Abramoff met with Rove at least once, the magazine said.

Strong ties to Rove?
Rove dined several times at Abramoff’s former restaurant in Washington, Signatures, and was Abramoff’s guest in a luxury box at a basketball playoff game a few years ago, sitting for much of the game at Abramoff’s side, Vanity Fair reported.

The White House has not released any photos that Bush took with Abramoff, but acknowledged the authenticity of one that has been made public. In the 2001 photo, Bush is seen shaking hands with the leader of an Indian tribe that was an Abramoff client. The lobbyist is in the background.

Abramoff said he thought about, but decided against, selling his photos with the Bushes for money. Publications were making Abramoff offers that rose to the low seven figures, Vanity Fair reports.

He blames the Bush administration for the media attention.

“My so-called relationship with Bush, Rove and everyone else at the White House has only become important because instead of just releasing details about the very few times I was there, they created a feeding frenzy by their deafening silence,” Abramoff told the magazine.

“The Democrats, on the other hand, are going overboard, virtually insisting I was there to plan the invasion of Iraq.”
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/22/...unity-for-now/
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...r_henry_n.html
May 22, 2007
Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson

by emptywheel

There has been a lot of discussion already about the Ralston news from today--that she asked for immunity so she could testify about Abramoff contacts with the White House. What seems to be missing from those stories is the takeaway: Henry Waxman's not giving Ralston immunity anytime soon.

Waxman provides a helpful map of what happened. Ralston gave a deposition on May 10--over a month after Waxman first invited her to visit. While there, she "testified on a number of subjects unrelated to the Abramoff matter." [Note to Novak and Rove--that bit's just there to make you sweat.] But as for the rest, Waxman describes what sounds like an unsuccessful attempt on the part of designated firewall defense lawyer Brad Berenson to convince Waxman to give Ralston immunity for stuff she's still under investigation for with the DOJ probe. Henry helpfully shows us the roadmap Berenson laid out for us:

Susan is here this morning voluntarily. She wants to assist the committee in its investigation to the extent she is able to. She is not under subpoena. We understand that the purpose of this morning’s deposition is really twofold: first, for her to provide the information that she can provide on a couple of subjects where she can testify without precondition … and, secondly, to make a record for the committee of the subjects on which she does not feel she can testify without a grant of immunity based on concerns that the testimony may reasonably form some link in a chain of evidence that someone could regard as inculpatory of her.

The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to on those grounds are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC.

She has material, useful information about both of those subjects. She is more than willing to provide it to the committee. However, she will, as we have previously discussed, require a grant of immunity before she is comfortable going forward.

And if you can't read that road map, Henry gives you an even more specific one:

She was personal friends with a number of the individuals on Abramoff’s staff, and as the
committee’s own report makes clear, was frequently the recipient of communications from them, even if the substantive matters under discussion related only to activities by other officials in the
White House.

So let me read the road map
for you all:   click to show 
Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...es&btnG=Search
The Abramoff Investigation :: Committee on Government Reform ...
White House Contacts. 485 lobbying contacts with the White House ... Jack Abramoff and his team had 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials between ...
oversight.house.gov/abramoff/index2.asp
Bush tells us an "enemy wants to attack us"....but no need for his key aids to use secure white house email....is there???
Quote:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/n...ompts_many.htm

....But just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence.

"We just got a bit lazy," said one aide. "We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed. We saw that with the Clintons but I don't think anybody saw that we were doing anything wrong." ....
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032601979.html
Correction to This Article
A March 27 article incorrectly attributed to Susan Ralston a warning that e-mail messages by lobbyist Jack Abramoff should not be put into the White House e-mail system "because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." The author of the 2003 e-mail citing the warning, Kevin Ring, said yesterday that the warning was issued not by Ralston but by Jennifer Farley, who was a deputy in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
Democrat Cites Investigation of Firings

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03

<i>A Democratic House committee chairman yesterday told the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign to retain copies of all e-mails sent or received by White House officials using e-mail accounts under their control, raising the political stakes in the congressional inquiry into U.S. attorneys' firings.</i>

......Waxman noted for example that J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, used a "gwb43.com" e-mail account last August to discuss the replacement of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, Bud Cummins, according to e-mails released to Congress by the White House.

Barry Jackson, a deputy to Rove, in 2003 used a "georgewbush.com" e-mail account to consult with Neil G. Volz, then an aide to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, about nominating one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients for a Medal of Freedom, according to a copy of an e-mail. Abramoff is now serving a prison sentence for bank fraud, and Volz plead guilty to conspiracy charges last year.

Susan B. Ralston, while she was executive assistant to Rove, similarly used "georgewbush.com" and "rnchq.org" e-mail accounts to confer in 2001 and 2003 with Abramoff, her former boss, about matters of interest to Abramoff's clients.

In a related e-mail, an Abramoff aide said Ralston had warned that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] . . . email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc."

Abramoff's response, according to a copy of his e-mail, was: "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."

Waxman said the exchange indicated that in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts "specifically to avoid creating a record of communications" that are nonetheless subject to the committee's jurisdiction.
yup...it's "war time".....Bush tells us it's a long, long war....enemy lurking...blah, blah, blah....we have to be "right 100 percent of the time...", yet there is no "email security policy", or preservation policy, and....the president's "special assistant"...sitting just down the hall from his office...is engaging her former boss, the man she followed from one lobbying firm to the next....is continuing her contacts....boasting that they are insecure...with her soon to be convicted felon....former boss....who the president, "doesn't know", even getting a 50 percent raise from the "war president":

Quote:
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...0758-87640.pdf
HENRY A. WAXMAN, CAUFORNIA,
CHAIRMAN
TOM DAVIS. VIRGINIA.
RANKING MINOBTTY MEMBER

The White House
I 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
V/ashington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
I am writing to request information and a briefing regarding the e-mail policies of the
White House.
On Monday, I wrote to the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney'04
campaign directing them to preserve the e-mails of White House officials.r In those letters, I
cited multiple examples of the use of political RNC e-mail accounts by White House officials
conducting official government business. [n one example I cited, an associate of convicted
lobbyist Jack Abramoff was advised by a White House official not to send communications
through the official White House e-mail system because "to put this stuff in writing in their email
system ... might actually limit what they can do to help us."'
Since Monday, I have learned of new examples of the use of RNC and campaign e-mail
accounts by White House officials, including:</b>
o New Abramoff E-Mails. Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove's executive assistant,
invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid
"security issues" with the White House e-mail system, writing: "I now have an RNC
blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH

Fred Fielding
March 29,2007
Page2

email."3 Ms. Ralston similarly wrote Mr. Abramoff: "I know [sic] have an RNC laptop
at the office for political use. I can access my AOL email when necessary so if you need
to send me something that I need to read, you can send to my AOL email and then call or
page me to check it."4</b>

New Scott Jennings E-Mails. Scott Jennings, the deputy director of political affairs in
the White House, and his assistant used "gwb43.com" e-mail accounts to communicate
with the General Services Administration about a partisan briefing that Mr. Jennings gave
to political appointees at GSA on January 26,2007.' When Mr. Jennings's assistant emailed
the PowerPoint presentation to GSA, she wrote: "It is a close hold and we're not
supposed to be emailing it around."o
o New Job Appointment E-Mails. Mr. Jennings also appears to have used his
"gwb43.com" account to recruit applicants for official government positions through the
"Kentucky Republican Voice," an internet site that describes itself as "the best source for
Kentucky Republican grassroots information." One posting from May 2005 advertised
17 vacancíes on assorted presidential boards and commissions.' A second posting from
May 2006 sought applicants for various boards within the Small Business
Administration.s In each case, these postings encouraged applicants to contact Mr.
Jennings at his "gwb43.com" address.
Moreover, U.S. News & ďlorld Reportreported yesterday thatmy letter on Monday to the
RNC may be driving official White House communications even further underground.
According to this report, at least two White House aides have now "bought their own private E-

Fred Fielding
March 29,2007
Page 3

mail system through a cellular phone or Blackberr)ˇ server" to avoid the possibilities of
subpoenas. Another aide told U.S. News that he now communicates through "texting."e
<b>The statements of White House spokesperson Dana Perino at a press briefing this week
only further confused the issue. She said: "Of course, peopl.e^are encouraged, on official White
House business, to use their official White House accounts."'u But she did not cite any specific
policy or guidance issued to White House staff regarding the use of e-mail accounts and the
preservation of presidential records</b>, and she acknowledged that certain officials in the White
House have been given access to political e-mail accounts. When asked if a new directive had
been issued to White House staff reminding them to use their White House e-mails, she stated, "I
don't know of any new directive, but it is what we ask people to do."ll
Ms. Perino was also vague in her answers about whether the White House is ensuring the
security and preservation of offrcial communications that are sent through RNC and campaign email
accounts. She stated:
With respect to presidential records, an email that is sent to or from a White House email
address is automatically archived, even if the other person is not using a White House
email account. I believe well, I know that our White House Counsel's Office is in
communication with the RNC's general counsel to make sure that those archivings have
taken place.l2
To help the Committee understand the White House policies involving the use of
nongovertmental e-mail accounts by White House officials, I ask you to provide the following
information:
All policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials
regarding appropriate use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts, particularly those
hosted by the Republican National Committee and other political organizations;
All policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials
regarding the obligation to preserve e-mail records, including those created while
using nongoverTrmental e-mail accounts'....
Quote:
http://www.philippinenews.com/news/v...194d4960b18353
Top Rove aide ‘critical’ in CIA probe
Rita Gerona Adkins, Nov 08, 2005
<img src="http://www.philippinenews.com/directory/getdata.asp?about_id=4997403295ea354107194d4960b18353-2">
.....But that incident also demonstrated Susan’s strength as an organized and systematic operator. Her message to the veterans was, “don’t make it difficult for us to help you; you don’t make it easy for us by causing us embarrassment.”

At 37, Ralston, a graduate of management, had worked as assistant to Jack Abramoff, a powerfully connected lobbyist, at the Preston Gates and Ellis and later at Greenberg Taurig law and lobbying firms. Story had it that Abramoff, indicted on alleged corruption charges involving, among others, former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, had offered Ralston to Rove when the latter was looking for an efficient and trusted assistant.

Before working in the nation’s capital, she was an office administrator for a commercial and real estate firm in Chicago, Ill.

Ralston has been promoted to Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the President Senior Adviser with an annual salary of $92,000. She is married to Troy Ralston, executive director of a graduate school of management.

Karl is an amazing person to work for. I feel very, very fortunate to be in an office where so much is happening,” Ralston told this reporter in a 2003 interview.
<h3>SO my question to Necrosis....and anyone else who lumps Hsu and Abramoff together...for the purpose of melding the two "situations"....can you see the differences? Hsu took advantage of no native Americans or of Pacific island "slave" laborers, or anyone else...apparently.... to obtain the money that he donated to democrats. He made no effort to inflitrate government agencies....indluding the oval office, itself, to extend his political influence or control. No democrat appears to have accepted money from him after one knew or should have known that Hsu's reputation was challenged, and no Democrat appears to have denied knowing/meeting him...least of all the democratic presidential candidates....</h3>

I suspect that many who predictably disagree with my political opinions, will not discern the clear differences in scope, ehtics, legality, and consequences to the fairness of government administration...between the crimes Abramoff committed in direct connection with the way he obtained the money he then donated to politicians, what he expected those politicians to officially do for him in exchange for those donations.....the failure of the politicians involved to react truthfully, timely, or in some cases...at all...to the seriousness of the damage that Abramoff caused to the reputations of the republican controlled congress and white house vs. what has been reported in the Hsu situation...in comparison to the reaction by democrats who accepted money from him.

Those associated with and in receipt of Abramoff money, almost exclusively republicans...seemed incapable, in too many instances.... of discerning right from wrong.....and that lack of discernment hurt the country.....just as it hurts the discourse on this forum..... I'm surprised that it has come to doing a thread topic on comparing Abramoff to Tsu...but I guess that I shouldn't be.....

Last edited by host; 10-21-2007 at 02:32 AM..
host is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 09:48 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Host, is there any illegality by Democrats that you won't defend on grounds that the Republicans do worse? don't you see that this sort of argumentation is the reason people hate Congress generally, no matter which party is in charge? And that fundraising chicanery breeds cynicism everywhere, no matter who does it and no matter for what reason?

One other thing: if you think Democrats are immune to quid pro quo corruption, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

I'm not defending Republicans here, but the partisan slant of this post is just way over the top, Host. I see no philosophical or moral principle here other than "democrats good, republicans bad - and if we can't have that, then democrats bad, republicans worse."

Can't we aspire to something better in this country?
loquitur is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 10:00 AM   #3 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
You know, loquitur's question actually brings up something I've noticed around here.

I don't think there are actually too many pro-Bush TFPers anymore, which is a big change.

It seems like the major political philosophy divide these days is between those who think the Dems are just "Junior Republicans" and those who think that their differences are enough.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 11:23 AM   #4 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
You know, loquitur's question actually brings up something I've noticed around here.

I don't think there are actually too many pro-Bush TFPers anymore, which is a big change.

It seems like the major political philosophy divide these days is between those who think the Dems are just "Junior Republicans" and those who think that their differences are enough.
This might be true but its not a change in thought but a change in membership posting. Most of my brethren quit due to a level of discourse which was non-conductive to rational thought. We said our goodbyes in PM's quite a while ago.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 12:09 PM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Host, is there any illegality by Democrats that you won't defend on grounds that the Republicans do worse? don't you see that this sort of argumentation is the reason people hate Congress generally, no matter which party is in charge? And that fundraising chicanery breeds cynicism everywhere, no matter who does it and no matter for what reason?

One other thing: if you think Democrats are immune to quid pro quo corruption, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

I'm not defending Republicans here, but the partisan slant of this post is just way over the top, Host. I see no philosophical or moral principle here other than "democrats good, republicans bad - and if we can't have that, then democrats bad, republicans worse."

Can't we aspire to something better in this country?
The post...and it's premise.....the one that influenced me to do this thread was "over the top".....and....since you're a member of the bar....presumably influenced by the facts, much more than by the heart.... I think that your criticism of me...in this set of circumstances is uncalled for.

I'm still hoping that you are able to discern right from wrong....but I'm less certain of it since reading your post, above.

I think you are telling me that your under reaction to a huge, coordinated wave of official corruption....and the attempt to deny, it cover it up, and then to wave it off as "business as usual"....by the people who committed the crimes....acrual crimes of conspiracy....not simply by association....and pretended to lead our government....both before and after....is on a par with what the press has reported has happened in the case of Hsu and democrats.

My reaction to what Abramoff has done...the lives he helped to ruin in the Mariannas....and the politicians who helped him accomplish it....if it was the only instance, was grave enough....but when you assemble all the parts of the scandals which he is at the center of.....and that is still to be done....my reaction is a whisper....compared to the scope of the damage and the reaction of indifference....by the people in government criminally involved, and more importantly....by the reaction of folks like you....which seem to me to be dismissive.

"Abramoff" is a massive fissure that puts character, morals, ethics, and the commitment to serve....of those who campaigned on a platform that they were superior to their opponents in all of those areas....on display.

You won't even look....and to say that I am somehow extreme....or flawed...or a divider....to document and react to "Abramoff"...on a political forum....given what has been reported...and his own admissions of guilt....is to deny what he has done.

I know....you don't see it....and that is the main point of this thread....too many people don't see it....see too little of it....or want to meld it with something like....Norman Tsu's political donations and his efforts to closely associate with democrats...... You do that to attempt to take the stink off or the Abramoff scandals...to disassociate from them......
host is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 12:20 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
nonsense, ustwo.
first you act as though conservatives have some monopoly on "rational thought"--which i assume means nothing beyond "statements i agree with"----second, folk who posted from a conservative position disappeared en masse after the november elections.

now you might think that this represented a reaction to "a level of discourse which was non-conductive to rational thought" but it looked a whole lot more like the tfp-right simply couldnt cope with your political movement being undermined--that is of the end of that conservative shangri-la that lasted from september 2001 through november 2006, during which conservative ideological statements and the "logic" of mainstream press coverage merged into a seamless continuum.

that's as good as it could get from the far right--the "war on terror' manufactured a degree of collective panic such that even the empty, incoherent memes particular to conservativeland seemed to function.

all the worse was the simple fact that your boy george w bush and his merry administration is entirely responsible for the undermining of the legitimacy of the politics for which he stands, outsourced and unaccountable, with liberty and capital accumulation for all the righteous and middleclass and fuck the rest, fuck them all.

all of which made it seem to me anyway that contemporary conservatism is most coherent as an oppositional movement, one which advances statements and implies programs without having to actually deliver on any of them--so that the consequences of the ideology remain implicit--and so long as they are implicit, folk who are inclined to think along those lines can pretend there would be no consequences--mostly because they are imagining the programs that they might like to see.
so for example, the rumsfeldian "just in time" war is entirely contained within conservative arguments about "privatization"---but privatizing infrastructure and military functions is a debacle each time it is tried. better to avoid the material consequences of actually implementing the crackpot notion of privatization by not actually holding power.
that way "arguments" about privatization come down to an aesthetic matter--whether a particular statement corresponds to the projections you deploy when you imagine what "privatization" means.
and i think that many conservatives are most comfortable arguing from aesthetics or "principle"--when a reality that will no conform to simplistic forumlae that are predicated mostly on making the petit bourgeois feel more secure in its fantasyworld, when that reality diverges too far from questions of aesthetics or "principle" you find a suddent diminuition in participation in political debate--and in this particular micro-cosm, the disappearance of the tfp-right.

as for ubertuber's point above: for what it's worth, i dont see this as a philosophical question. it's immanent. the democrats are in a no=win situation in congress--they are taking a great sustained pounding at their own hands it seems by advancing claims that their position in congress simply does not allow them to implement without cross-over support from moderate republicans, such as they are--so they are ineivtably arguing from the right. everyone--the press, the democrats, the republicans--wants to locate/define an anti-war "movement" or "sentiment" or "population" and put it somewhere--and by doing that to quarantine it---so everyone jockeys for position by floating definitions of this anti-war phenomenon--but it seems futile, in that opposition to the war in iraq is so widespread that it crosses out of conventional ways of distinguishing one group for another--leaving only a few stalwarts on the militarist right trying to figure out some way of defending what by any rational measure is a debacle, a "nightmare without end" in the words of the last of the man generals who have retired and then gone public saying that this iraq thing is fucked up.

the democrats are forced to the right-center positionally. they think they can benefit from tapping into opposition to the farce that is bushworld. but they cant find this opposition, and even if they could, their tactical position is at cross purposes with even looking for an opposition. if they are doing it anyway, and trying to position themselves with reference to an opposition, then they are hoisting themselves up a long mast all by themselves, where they will dangle, upside down and in the wind, next election. only a fuckup like george w bush carries enough negative weight to prevent damage. and that guy isnt running. (thank whomever might be out there watching over the cosmos for that much, even though i am sure she's too busy to bother much with american domestic politics)

the republicans want to identify the democrats with this opposition too, as a way of positioning them to the left of where they really are in order to scare the moderates--many of whom are disgusted by bushworld--into towing the party line anyway, at least on election day.

the press mostly wants to be able to act as though it has control over information, so wants to locate this population for its own reasons. given the amorphousness of the term "opposition" and the fact that tv remains as it is (for example) the groups with the shortest, pithiest memes get air time, and so it seems that the republicans are still defining the democrats for them, because they pretend to know where this "opposition" to bushworld is, and in rightwing land, this is "the left"--you know, the fifth column and all that shit.

as for the op, i dont have much of anything to say about it.
not at this point anyway.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 06:07 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Host, there was lots of corruption under Clinton, too. In fact, at the advanced age of 48, I can't think of a single presidency in my adult lifetime that didn't have a scandal of some sort. I can think of plenty of reasons for that, but it afflicted both parties. I understand you're a partisan democrat, but you're also an intelligent person, and if you can't see that power creates opportunities for corruption no matter who is in power, well, maybe you have a blind spot.

Ubertuber, I"m not pro-Bush or pro- any particular politician. I have certain standards of decency that I want to see upheld. I don't need a savior or a superman/woman - all I want is a decent honest person. Even if I disagree on this issue or that, I'm happy to have that decency and honesty. I live in NYC, and the last politician I felt that way about was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Since then I have found every single person whose name was on the ballot to be either indecent or dishonest, or both, or incompentent (which is a form of indecency, putting yourself forward for a job you're not capable of performing). I'm really tired of having to hold my nose every time I vote.
loquitur is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 06:14 PM   #8 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
loquitur, you've just expressed my own feelings more clearly than I usually can.

For what it's worth, I hadn't actually pegged you in any party, other than skeptic.

Ustwo: that's sort of an interesting thought. At the very least, it's both. I can think of people who have changed their views, and you claim that it's because rational thought has left the building. Interestingly, it seems like that mostly happened after the "thumping" last November. I wonder what that means?
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 06:36 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
heh........ you might be surprised about my default attitudes. Thing is, though, I recognize what my initial reactions usually are and I work very hard to question them and test them, over and over again. It's not easy, but I think it's essential to being honest. Trusting your own instincts on political matters is very dangerous, because political attitudes tend to cluster in certain ways (e.g., one's views on unions will usually predict one's views on abortion), and it's highly unlikely that any one cluster will be right every time. So it's important to keep testing, reading, questioning. That's why I find partisan claptrap very distressing. Both parties are inhabited by human beings, and human beings are flawed. They're flawed individually and they're flawed in groups.

The great thing about this country is that we can withstand the flaws and do just fine. Separation of powers is a gift from the framers that I'm grateful for every day.
loquitur is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 09:24 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Isn't the difference between the two that Abramoff was a criminal because of what he was doing in politics and Hsu was a criminal who happened to be in politics? Maybe i'm ill informed but was anything that Hsu did politically illegal?
Rekna is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 09:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
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  
Old 10-22-2007, 04:22 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Host, I think you misunderstood what I said about Moynihan. I didn't say he was a Democrat I can support, in fact I didn't mention which party he was because to me it didn't matter. I said he was the last time I voted for someone who I felt was both decent and honest, whether or not I agreed with him on every issue (and no, I didn't claim he was perfect - he was human, he couldn't be). I certainly have voted for plenty of Democrats and have voted likewise for plenty of Republicans. My point is that my criteria are not partisan, they're more a set of principles and character traits. That's why Eliot Spitzer is disappointing me terribly right now - I voted for him because he said during the campaign that NY state government is a sinkhole of corruption and dysfunction and that he would fix it. He was right and I was optimistic that he could do what he set about to do - and then when he got into office he promptly did the same old log-rolling that his distinctly unimpressive predecessor, George Pataki, did, and then compounded it by deciding that the way to fix the culture in Albany was to do a political smear against the Senate Majority leader, who is a Republican (and whom I don't care for, but his political sins are the same ones as the Speaker of the Assembly, who is a Democrat). So Spitzer turns out to be the same old story of someone who talks a good game and then does the opposite. See what my issue is?

Huey Long is your idea of a good politician? Host, I find that terrifying. Really. Have you been to Louisiana? It's still suffering from a hangover from the Kingfisher, so far as I can tell, even all these years later. I used to think NY had the worst state govt in the country, but I was wrong - Louisiana does. The degree of corruption down there is frightening. Huey Long was a demagogue.

If you look at the really great presidents, they combined backbone and flexibility, and the judgment to know which of the two to use in which context. To take just two: Jefferson, who was a revolutionary suspicious of all government power (especially federal power), sent troops overseas to defeat the Barbary Pirates and engineered the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln was a corporate lawyer and defender of private property who liberated more human beings from slavery than any other person in history.

I understand you think the main criterion for evaluating an elected government official is whether he helped people. That's fine, but you still have to define what it means to help people, and to supply the definition in the context of the job the person was elected to do. I think if you speak to most people of either party they'll say they want politicians to make the country a better place to live, for all its citizens - but that is a standard devoid of content. The question is which tools will be used to achieve that, and what criteria should be used to measure it.
loquitur is offline  
 

Tags
abramoff, difference, dividethat, faction, hsu, sees, symptom

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:26 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

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