The word corruption has been nearly rendered meaningless by the more recent forms it takes. How can one distinguish a bribe from the pay a Congressman gets when he/she wears two hats? When a man like Roy Blunt or Tom DeLay, or their friends such as the Abramoff I've profiled before, have such tight connections to organizations that are promoting their agenda that it is impossible to tell whether he is married to the special interests or merely married to someone who represents those special interests, the results soon start to show themselves in legistlation and politics. Yes, our porker politics requires that our politicians be prostitutes to special interests, but they could try being a little more discreet about their dalliances. Do they have to be so shameless? When Democrats were the majority the special interests used to court both parties. They were all prostitutes to different interests, but at least they seemed to have a sense of shame about it. Not so today. Maybe it's my imagination or Maybe I'm just cynical, but this is not just sleaze. It's rather wholesale. And guess whose paying for all this sleaze. Well maybe not -- it's being financed with debt. And they've learned how to get the corporations to compromise with each other and make money in the process. At least the roads will get paved, the trains will run on time (once AMTRACK is buried) and the bombs will get dropped. Perpetual war anyone? 1984 is twenty years late. Maybe I'm wrong, please convince me that I am? Some have tried, but all they do is make my BS detector go off and sends me researching more stuff that makes me sick.
Once people have learned to institutionalize corruption (they aren't bribes they are campaign contributions. They aren't bribes they are payment rendered for services) the same soon starts to go for court nominees and administration officials. These two people being filibustered in the Senate -- as trial baloon nominations designed to break the power of the minority forever -- are noted not just for "right wing" beliefs, as for their "pro-business" decision history. They seem to be people who have never met a consumer interest they liked, nor met a corporative interest they didn't support.
Don't we all know people like that? I've been following these debates. The House narrowly averted dumping ethics rules to protect the kleptocracy there, and now we are seeing efforts to make sure that the courts move as far to the "right" as these Corporative Government folks want it to move. A country of corporations, run by corporations, and serving corporations. But who am I to complain? I'm supposed to support my President and Party; right wrong or indifferent. Every nominee deserves a rubber stamp -- I mean an "up or down vote."
My observation is that nobody is perfect. And there are reasons why the Senate has not done away with filibusters on Judicial Nominees before. And the whole debate is fascinating. I really don't expect you to agree or disagree with me on my word. I really want you folks to learn about the subject and form your own opinion. Advice and consent was also supposed to be a property for the rest of us too. We elect these guys -- in theory. Just remember that next time you hear a clever add or a clever -- but dishonest argument from someone on a talk show or a TV program.
Maybe it's my imagination or Maybe I'm just cynical,
`````````````````````````````
Or maybe a bit of both?
Generally speaking, when the President's Pary has a huge majority in ther Senate, they get nominees approved. Clinton had trouble, because the American people voted Senate Democrats out of office, in 1994. Lame ducks generally have trouble too, hence it was worse his last two years, especially the final months.
This talk about Nuclear option is just plain silliness. There is no Right to Filibuster. And there is no talk of doing away with it totally. That is lie. It is just for a special case of Judicial nominees.
The Senate makes their own rules. The Democrats changed them to make Filbuster easier by changing to a Cloture Vote. Then, they found it was too easy, so they reduced cloture from 67 votes to a 60.
In 2000, the Democrats used a little extra-electoral skullduggery to regain control of the Senate. They bribed a singing liberal Republican to change Parties, after the Election, with a cherry Chairmanship he had not earned.
Since then, they have lost ground every time. In fact, their unprecedented abuse of Filbusters, to block Judicial nominees, is a big reason they lost seats in 2004.
Their current ploy is trying to fool people into thinking it is the Republicans doing something odd here. I fear the Republicans are taking the bait. People are pretty dense when it comes to the Constitution, and might buy it.
Right now, it is one of those who will blink first stand offs. Fun stuff. We pay a lot for Congress, and get very little for our money, so they ought to be at least entertaining.
mettawaves
robin
Thank you for weighing in Robin. We've been discussing this at Buddhist_dialogue_group@yahoogroups.com with as little give between the two of us as between Senator Frist and Senator Harry Reid. I happen to agree with the Right Good Senator from West Virginia Senator Bird.
But I have to take issue with several of your points.
1. They did not "bribe" anyone. The Senator who changed parties and became a Democrat did so on his own initiative and for good reason as shown by the subsequent behavior of your party.
2. The Republicans are doing something nasty here. Odd no. Their behavior is as predictable as Republican Behavior always is. They aren't likened to Elephants for no reason. They have long and selective memories.
3. I've been agreeing with you on one point, and that the only way the Democrats are going to avoid being run over is to start aggressively attacking elections and run candidates against even the safest of Republican seats with enough money and backing to actually win. That requires a sea change in the way that Democrats do business comparable to the one which Gingrich started when he organized the right wing.
4. We get what we pay for. If these guys act like asses or rogue elephants it's because we want them to represent us and they do. Unfortunately it's entirely possible for people to act like both.