Karl Rove: The first dirtbag thrown out of the White House?

[NovaTerra]

Oh, conservatives, tell me you would NOT be on this story like white on rice...if it were someone from Klinton's administration...

I guess it is ok to have meetings like this if you are a Republican.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<< The first dirtbag thrown out of the White House? >>

lol, no we just did that with the recent election.



<< I guess it is ok to have meetings like this if you are a Republican. >>

*snicker*

 

[NovaTerra]

Sure am glad you took the time to actually read the article, FFM.

How do you respond to this:





<< Federal ethics laws and rules prohibit an executive official with an economic interest in a decision from participating through recommendations, advice or rulings.

The only way Rove could avoid violating the laws was &quot;if he were truly mute and he offered no comment then or later&quot; on the Intel matter, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor.

&quot;The whole purpose of ethics rules is to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, and having even a hint of an appearance problem destroys people's confidence in government,&quot; Cohen said.
>>

 

[etech]

Or this one.

&quot;Some legal experts said Rove should have removed himself from the discussion with Intel's chief executive officer and two of its lobbyists to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest under federal ethics laws.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

No, I didn't read the article. If I did, I would have quoted parts of the article and snickered at them. What did I do? Snicker at the fact that you think Republicans in general can get away with things merely because they are republicans. That's shallow. That's retarded. Hmm... maybe dat why you posted it?? :Q

 

[Moonbeam]

If there is a real ethical issue here I have enough faith in the conservatives and their special lock on character to do in their own moral failures without Democratic help.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

lol

 

[shiner]

While it does look fishy it could have been worse. I mean at least he was selling out to the Chinese.

 

[sandorski]

It could have been better too, he could have just been getting some with an intern!

 

[WordSmith2000]

Hm. I find an interesting trend here. When Clinton was porking the intern, the conservatives in this forum would not allow anyone to compare what he is doing with the bad things done under the Bush and Reagan administrations (&quot;They are not the President, Klintonsky is&quot. But as soon as a negative article comes out about the staff of GWB, the conservatives pull out the blue dress.

Sorry guys, but collusion and possible insider trading in the halls of the White House has a much greater impact on your bottom line than the President getting a humjob. This is not the first time KR has done such things, either. He also had a similar situation arise with General Electric and the stock he owned...it looks like a pattern to me.

 

[iamwiz82]

Wordsmith, i dotn care that clinton got a BJ, i care that he was selling us out to the Chinese. Notice that as soon as Bush got in, Chinese relations went down. That is because Bush didnt follow the policy of giving the chinee what they want when they want it.

 

[Kanly]

Didin't Bush promise his administration would be so ethical there wouldn't even be an appearance of a conflict of interest?


And what about Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill?
Paul O'Neill promised to dump his Alcoa stock in March. He still hasn't -- and might have bagged $62 million as a result.

 

[jjm]

Clinton's sexual escapades did not compromise national interests. They were morally wrong, but did not sell out to a conflict of interest.

At a minimum, Rove created the appearance of a conflict of interest, and one that has a national policy, not a personal impact. GWB claimed that his administration would not only meet the letter of the law but would go beyond it and be an ethical model. Of course, I guess we should not have believed him anyway. GWB has already stated that he can't trust his own daughters with the truth, so why wouldn't he lie to the American people?

 

[Kanly]

&quot;GWB has already stated that he can't trust his own daughters with the truth, so why wouldn't he lie to the American people?&quot;

Nice point.

 

[jjm]

There was also the recent meeting Cheyney had with Enron officials in the midst of the California debate.

Yep, this administration is beyond reproach. :Q

 

[Mikal]

Anyone who's surprised, raise your hand!

 

[jjm]

For all his bluster about the ethical high road during the campaign, I notice that good ole Jr is strangely quiet about the recent ethical lapses of his hand-picked staff.

 

[jjm]

Actually, it's pretty striking that all the GWB-lovers who expressed their outrage over Slick's stunts are suddenly very silent right now. I guess that it's morally or ethically wrong only if the culprit is from the &quot;other&quot; party.

 

[Kanly]

Everyone should really check out that O'Neill story too.

 

[jjm]

Given his ability to influence decisions affecting that industry, and the size of his holdings, the O'Neill thing does look worse.

But both situations are bad, and they hardly live up to Jr's assertions that his people would be held to the highest standards.

 

[Kanly]

jjm, wasn't trying to say O'Neill is worse -- both are bad/troubling to me.
Bascially was just pointing out a similary stroy to Rove's.


I'm not holding my breath for Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch, Bob Barr and the rest of that pack to hold umpteen news conferences, launch investigations or initiate lawsuits over this.

 

[Kanly]

Hmmm, found this on the White House site
Standards of Official Conduct

January 20, 2001






MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Standards of Official Conduct


Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government. I ask you to ensure that all personnel within your departments and agencies are familiar with, and faithfully observe, applicable ethics laws and regulations, including the following general principles from the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch:

(1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.

(2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.


(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations.

Please thank the personnel of your departments and agencies for their commitment to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people.

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[jjm]

Hey, Duke, those seem like pretty strong statements by Jr. I wonder what he contemplated doing with violators of these standards? Did you find anything on that?

 

[Mursilis]

Corruption in government?!?!?! I'm shocked!! So very shocked!!!

Or not.

This news is not surprising - maybe disappointing, but not surprising. Is Lord Acton's observation that &quot;power corrupts&quot; new to anyone? Yet I am still a conservative, and this is exactly why - because history tells us (again and again!!) that power will ultimately and inherently be abused, and there is no greater institutional power in modern life than government; hence, its power needs to be limited, and we need to be vigilant in keeping it limited. Sure, the rise of incredibly wealthy and therefore powerful multi-national corporations is also cause for concern, but generally, the institutional power of government trumps that of corporations, which is why we should trust governments less (but still be suspicious of corporations). Corporations generally don't have the power to set or administer law, and they don't have armed forces (unless General Motors has an army hidden somewhere). Look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., and what they 'accomplished' - it takes a government to truly subjugate and slaughter your fellow man.

I tend to vote Republican because they claim to be the party of limited government, although they've established themselves in Congress as pork-barrelers equal to the Dems, but at least they fight the really dumb stuff, like HillaryCare. [You think private HMO's are bad? Look at the VA medical system. Any vet who can scrape together the $ for private coverage does so in a heartbeat. Likewise, all reasonable projections suggest Gen. X'ers such as myself will have a negative rate of return when we begin drawing Social Security, if it in fact it is still solvent at all. So I don't want the government running my retirement plan either. ]

Anyway, to sum up, I'm not surprised at all, and I'm most likely still not going to vote for the Dem. candidate in '04, as Bush will no doubt be the lesser evil. Some Greek philosopher whose name escapes me said something to the effect that the only people you can trust with political power are those who don't want it. Still very true 2000+ years later.

 

[Wedesdo]

typical republican corruption. they'll be out in 3.5 years.