Misquote of the year: Most ethical congress ever.

[blackangst1]

Oh and all the transparency bullshit.

I hope whoever is found to be guilty of violations is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I really had hope Obama would follow through with his transparency...but seeing how we wouldnt have known about this unless it was leaked, I guess it was all lip service. Welcome to politics big boy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18ethics.html

Congressional Ethics Inquiries Drag on, Despite Vows to End Corruption

WASHINGTON — With high-profile investigations under way against Democrats and Republicans, Congress is facing a series of difficult tests of the toughened ethics system that it put in place to weed out corruption and malfeasance among its members.

For instance, two weeks after public disclosures raised questions about the involvement of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, in possible illegal lobbying, Senate ethics officials have yet to contact the former top Ensign aide at the heart of the case, even though they portray it as a serious matter. Meanwhile, the investigation of the finances and fund-raising of Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, has dragged on for more than a year and has become the subject of tense political infighting.

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, who is accused of having consorted with prostitutes, was never disciplined for largely technical reasons; the Senate said his actions came when he was in the House and did not involve his professional conduct. And two leading Democratic senators, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, were cleared of accusations that they received favorable “V.I.P.” loans from Countrywide Financial.

Two former Republican senators have been officially admonished, a relatively light punishment. They are Larry E. Craig of Idaho, who pleaded guilty in an undercover sex sting at an airport, and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, who was accused of an appearance of impropriety for contacting a federal prosecutor about a pending case.

 

[cliftonite]

Oh and all the transparency bullshit.

I hope whoever is found to be guilty of violations is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I really had hope Obama would follow through with his transparency...but seeing how we wouldnt have known about this unless it was leaked, I guess it was all lip service. Welcome to politics big boy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18ethics.html

Congressional Ethics Inquiries Drag on, Despite Vows to End Corruption

WASHINGTON — With high-profile investigations under way against Democrats and Republicans, Congress is facing a series of difficult tests of the toughened ethics system that it put in place to weed out corruption and malfeasance among its members.

For instance, two weeks after public disclosures raised questions about the involvement of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, in possible illegal lobbying, Senate ethics officials have yet to contact the former top Ensign aide at the heart of the case, even though they portray it as a serious matter. Meanwhile, the investigation of the finances and fund-raising of Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, has dragged on for more than a year and has become the subject of tense political infighting.

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, who is accused of having consorted with prostitutes, was never disciplined for largely technical reasons; the Senate said his actions came when he was in the House and did not involve his professional conduct. And two leading Democratic senators, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, were cleared of accusations that they received favorable “V.I.P.” loans from Countrywide Financial.

Two former Republican senators have been officially admonished, a relatively light punishment. They are Larry E. Craig of Idaho, who pleaded guilty in an undercover sex sting at an airport, and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, who was accused of an appearance of impropriety for contacting a federal prosecutor about a pending case.

What does this have to do with Obama and transparency? Does Obama have the power to discipline those senators?

 

[OrByte]

This post doesn't make any sense. Exactly what/where/who do we need to direct our faux outrage at this time OP?

Other than Obama of course...

 

[blackangst1]

What does this have to do with Obama and transparency? Does Obama have the power to discipline those senators?

Absolutely. Im not sure if you know this about politics, but generally those who are in the same party as the POTUS will follow his direction and lead. Not sure if you knew that.

 

[First]

Obama is POTUS. He's not in the Senate.

FYI.

 

[First]

Absolutely. Im not sure if you know this about politics, but generally those who are in the same party as the POTUS will follow his direction and lead. Not sure if you knew that.

lmao, really? "Generally" doesn't mean much when you can't control the actions of a whole slew of individuals, and I'm sorry but there's no way one president should dictate the powers Congress holds. That's why they're a separate branch.

 

[cliftonite]

lmao, really? "Generally" doesn't mean much when you can't control the actions of a whole slew of individuals, and I'm sorry but there's no way one president should dictate the powers Congress holds. That's why they're a separate branch.

Just his usual worthless trollbait. Well have to live with it for a while.

 

[bamacre]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the OP is targeting Obama. Seems like he drifted off course. The blame certainly falls at the feet of Congress, and especially the Democrats, who hold a majority.

 

[JKing106]

Absolutely. Im not sure if you know this about politics, but generally those who are in the same party as the POTUS will follow his direction and lead. Not sure if you knew that.

You're really this stupid, aren't you? The POTUS and Senate are in two completely different branches. It's not a fucking dictatorship, like Bush and Co. tried to make. The President cannot "order" members of the House or Senate to do anything, no should they be inclined to do so. Jesus.

 

[NesuD]

doesn't really have much to do with Obama other than being a poor reflection on politicians in general. We have no one to blame but ourselves because this is what we get when we vote for ideology rather than honesty.

 

[First]

doesn't really have much to do with Obama other than being a poor reflection on politicians in general. We have no one to blame but ourselves because this is what we get when we vote for ideology rather than honesty.

Let's be honest, there's no way to know for sure which politicians are "honest" until they actually have to make tough decisions. And bottom line is that "honesty" in politics is entirely relative. They're all about ends justifying the means, and really rightfully so, but to varying (and vitally important) degrees of difference.

 

[boomerang]

Misdeeds by members of Congress are not new of course, but the outrage here is the extent of the foot-dragging that goes on in these "investigations". It extends to both sides of the aisle, once again, regardless of which party holds the majority. It's obvious that Congress is not capable of policing themselves.

It's the good old boy network front and center and in our faces. What will it take to change these attitudes? This better than you, holier that thou attitude that permeates Congress.

Voting them out doesn't work. They are not all on the same election cycle. If one bad apple is left ...... How do you fight the people who make the laws?

 

[NesuD]

Let's be honest, there's no way to know for sure which politicians are "honest" until they actually have to make tough decisions. And bottom line is that "honesty" in politics is entirely relative. They're all about ends justifying the means, and really rightfully so, but to varying (and vitally important) degrees of difference.

Maybe, maybe not. I think we can tell a lot about a mans integrity and honesty just by listening to him. Unfortunately our thinking is such that our ideology nearly always overrides our ability to judge character. Even when confronted with overwhelming evidence our ideology will still compel us to defend the man in most cases. We are slaves to our ideology and we let it blind us to the most important qualities we require in a leader.

As a nation of voters most of us have the tendency to base our decisions on ideology even when we absolutely disagree with a candidate. The honesty factor seems to be something we are unable to separate from our desire to follow our ideology. We often behave like herd animals, completely incapable of going against the herd even when we can see the herd is taking us off a cliff.

Honesty is not relative. Honesty is being truthful and open. It is an absolute. When you change the meaning for politicians you are becoming that herd animal again. We have a right to expect honesty and openness from our politicians but we will not get it until we demand it and stop letting our ideology get in the way of our integrity. I would rather vote for an honest man who is diametrically opposed to my ideology than to vote for a dishonest man who parrots everything I believe in. One thing you can always be sure of is that an honest man will always do what he believes is best for you rather than what he believes is best for himself.

 

[FerrelGeek]

doesn't really have much to do with Obama other than being a poor reflection on politicians in general. We have no one to blame but ourselves because this is what we get when we vote for ideology rather than honesty.

As well as those who promise us the most toys. Alas, we eventually get what we deserve.

 

[heyheybooboo]

""Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who specializes in government ethics, said the increased activity had made politicians, lobbyists and corporations much more cautious about adhering to the rules, whether it involved staying under a $50 lunch limit or disclosing lobbying ties and income sources.

Now, he said, “the rules of the road have changed.""

It's a start, albeit weak sauce and 50% lip service.

Back it up with some serious legislation to hold the Looters at arms-length and we may have something ...

 

[blackangst1]

This post doesn't make any sense. Exactly what/where/who do we need to direct our faux outrage at this time OP?

Other than Obama of course...

Congress, of course. Are you dense?

 

[blackangst1]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the OP is targeting Obama. Seems like he drifted off course. The blame certainly falls at the feet of Congress, and especially the Democrats, who hold a majority.

Im not targeting Obama. Since you apparently fail at reading let me repost a sentence you didnt read in my OP:

I hope whoever is found to be guilty of violations is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[blackangst1]

Misdeeds by members of Congress are not new of course, but the outrage here is the extent of the foot-dragging that goes on in these "investigations". It extends to both sides of the aisle, once again, regardless of which party holds the majority. It's obvious that Congress is not capable of policing themselves.

It's the good old boy network front and center and in our faces. What will it take to change these attitudes? This better than you, holier that thou attitude that permeates Congress.

Voting them out doesn't work. They are not all on the same election cycle. If one bad apple is left ...... How do you fight the people who make the laws?

No, the outrage is the attempt at keeping these investigations behind closed doors, after proclaiming the most ethical congress ever, and pushing for so-called transparency. There will always be corruption in politics. Always. But keeping it a secret is just wrong.

 

[Sinsear]

 

[Robor]

Congress, of course. Are you dense?

Other than the transparency part it looks like you're targeting Congress.

 

[Lemon law]

Its a little hard for me to get my arms around calling someone like Vitters corrupt because he opted to get a little Nooky on the side. He may be a hypocrite on family values, he may be other wise corrupt, but we should really ask whom politicians vote for, the interests of the American people or do they do the bidding of the lobbyists that fund their elections?

And somewhat be it resolved, we see the powerful corporations funding the lobbyists who in turn buy our congress. Money is the mother's milk of politics has always been the been the key explanation of politics, and American politics has always been driven in that direction.

The extent of congressional corruption probably hit new heights at the turn of the 20'th century, it was the battle cry of Newt Gingrich in 1994 as he labeled the democrats the party of lawyers and lobbyists, and instead we got Tom Delay who refined corruption to a new art form by creating K street where it became a sin to even allow competing democratic lobbyists.

And to some extent, a government bought and paid for by lobbyists is partly what contributed to the failures in good governance during the GWB era. Which results in guess what folks, a switch in which political party controls US government.

Which created a real dilemma for lobbyists. In the normal course of events, lobbyists tend to try to bribe the political party in the majority, but this time around its a little harder, because the democratic agenda that Obama ran on is almost 100% against large corporate interests. So instead of suffering from a large drop in corporate money,
large corporations are funding the GOP to resist the Obama agenda. Its simply a matter of survival for large health insurance companies that know they are toast if real health reform is passed.

 

[First]

Maybe, maybe not. I think we can tell a lot about a mans integrity and honesty just by listening to him. Unfortunately our thinking is such that our ideology nearly always overrides our ability to judge character. Even when confronted with overwhelming evidence our ideology will still compel us to defend the man in most cases. We are slaves to our ideology and we let it blind us to the most important qualities we require in a leader.

As a nation of voters most of us have the tendency to base our decisions on ideology even when we absolutely disagree with a candidate. The honesty factor seems to be something we are unable to separate from our desire to follow our ideology. We often behave like herd animals, completely incapable of going against the herd even when we can see the herd is taking us off a cliff.

Honesty is not relative. Honesty is being truthful and open. It is an absolute. When you change the meaning for politicians you are becoming that herd animal again. We have a right to expect honesty and openness from our politicians but we will not get it until we demand it and stop letting our ideology get in the way of our integrity. I would rather vote for an honest man who is diametrically opposed to my ideology than to vote for a dishonest man who parrots everything I believe in. One thing you can always be sure of is that an honest man will always do what he believes is best for you rather than what he believes is best for himself.

Except this idea that politicians can actually adhere to this idealized notion of "absolute honesty" you claim is necessary is utter bunk, and it's not true even in normal everyday life. You lie all the time; whether it's the little white lie you tell your friends when they ask you about their stand-up comedy routine, whether it's telling your kids that Santa exists, or telling your pregnant wife she looks fine when she asks you if she's fat and eating like an African lion. These are the decent things to do or the socially acceptable things to do because, generally, they really don't cause any harm. The ends justify the means in those situations.

So, in terms of politicians, it is absolutely insane to say they should adhere to some idealized principle of honesty that everyday people don't adhere to for the same reasons; in the case of politicians a particular level of honesty is necessary to get them elected in the first place, and from there they have to adhere to another level of honesty to actually get good things done (i.e. passing the reforms they want). You simply cannot be honest with the American people as a politician 100% of the time, it's not going to get you elected and it certainly isn't actually going to get anything meaningful done. This is reality, and it's like this all over the planet. We can always hope to improve it as time goes on, but you'd be lying if you said it was any different or that people can simply "demand" idealized honesty as if that isn't hypocritical.

 

[Vette73]

Just his usual worthless trollbait. Well have to live with it for a while.

Just go to the "User CP" at top and then click on "Edit Ignore List" on the left then post in " blackangst1 "

 

[NesuD]

Except this idea that politicians can actually adhere to this idealized notion of "absolute honesty" you claim is necessary is utter bunk, and it's not true even in normal everyday life. You lie all the time; whether it's the little white lie you tell your friends when they ask you about their stand-up comedy routine, whether it's telling your kids that Santa exists, or telling your pregnant wife she looks fine when she asks you if she's fat and eating like an African lion. These are the decent things to do or the socially acceptable things to do because, generally, they really don't cause any harm. The ends justify the means in those situations.

So, in terms of politicians, it is absolutely insane to say they should adhere to some idealized principle of honesty that everyday people don't adhere to for the same reasons; in the case of politicians a particular level of honesty is necessary to get them elected in the first place, and from there they have to adhere to another level of honesty to actually get good things done (i.e. passing the reforms they want). You simply cannot be honest with the American people as a politician 100% of the time, it's not going to get you elected and it certainly isn't actually going to get anything meaningful done. This is reality, and it's like this all over the planet. We can always hope to improve it as time goes on, but you'd be lying if you said it was any different or that people can simply "demand" idealized honesty as if that isn't hypocritical.

And that view is exactly what keeps it the way it is. If you keep the bar low enough anyone can step over it. If you never demand the level of honesty and integrity that is needed to fix our broken political system then it will never be fixed. If for once everyone would stop telling each other why you can't and instead started asking how we can then maybe just maybe some real change could be realized. Until then however the integrity of our leaders will continue to spiral down to ever lower depths.

In any case you seem to have missed my primary point. We as the voting public make bad decisions because we let our ideology select leaders who many of us would never consider if our decisions were based on their character and integrity ahead of their ideology.