Something to ask your Congressman before election day

One of my biggest pet peeves with the US political system has been driven home, again, by the recently concluded trial of Senator Ted Stevens. Isn't it ironic that many states deny convicted felons who have served their debt to society the right to ever vote again, but don't deny "other" convicted felons the priviledge to serve as ones' Congressman or Senator? Law Enforcement personnel, State & Federal, cannot begin or remain in service with past or current felonies on their record. Considering the authority they bring to bear, being held to a higher standard is certainly justified and desirable.

So why is it that our political leaders, who wield even greater authority, are not held to a higher standard of legal/ethical/moral behavior? Both parties "pay lip service" to ethical standards when it suits their party or personal interests, but no meaningful effective action is ever really accomplished. Giving these ethically challenged criminals the boot with loss of all pension benefits and perks would go a long way in restoring faith in our system. May Uncle Ted rot in :daisy: at Club Med Correctional Facility, if he even gets served with jail time that is.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'd make him my porter.

We are merely pawns in there game Hosa. The more I see this kind of thing the more I am disgusted at the ol boy infrastructure our government has. If Stevens had been black poor and had no power he gets thrown in jail. Bleh.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...rss-topstories

I hope this dosn't mean anything but the fact that his poll numbers are still tied with his opponet is crazy. How could anyone think of voting for a guy who was convicted of coruption. But thats not a problem since he's Alaska's corrupt guy, nevermind that he's hurting the rest of the nation. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

One of my biggest pet peeves with the US political system has been driven home, again, by the recently concluded trial of Senator Ted Stevens. Isn't it ironic that many states deny convicted felons who have served their debt to society the right to ever vote again, but don't deny "other" convicted felons the priviledge to serve as ones' Congressman or Senator? Law Enforcement personnel, State & Federal, cannot begin or remain in service with past or current felonies on their record. Considering the authority they bring to bear, being held to a higher standard is certainly justified and desirable.

So why is it that our political leaders, who wield even greater authority, are not held to a higher standard of legal/ethical/moral behavior? Both parties "pay lip service" to ethical standards when it suits their party or personal interests, but no meaningful effective action is ever really accomplished. Giving these ethically challenged criminals the boot with loss of all pension benefits and perks would go a long way in restoring faith in our system. May Uncle Ted rot in :daisy: at Club Med Correctional Facility, if he even gets served with jail time that is.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'd make him my porter.

---

Why are none of the Bushies who gave the middle finger to subpoenas not in prison like any plebeian citizen would be if they did the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Why are none of the Bushies who gave the middle finger to subpoenas not in prison like any plebeian citizen would be if they did the same?

---

It's a matter of enforcement and the will to do so. Federal courts have ruled that these subpoenas cannot be ignored. Obviously, neither party really wants to open up this can of worms; just posture in front of the court of popular opinion instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HosakawaTito

So why is it that our political leaders, who wield even greater authority, are not held to a higher standard of legal/ethical/moral behavior?

---

It does seem incongruous, I admit. But it does underline the primacy of the will of the people. If felony conviction is not a written bar to election, the people can elect anyone to hold office.

It's a stretch, but stay with me a moment: Think of all the 3rd world nations where political opposition is jailed for years/decades. Mandela, etc. If not killed, they eventually get released. Sometimes, the people, having either changed their minds about the guy, or had their own opposition suppressed, or in a 'fit' of liberation-fever, want that convicted felon elevated to office.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...rss-topstories

I hope this dosn't mean anything but the fact that his poll numbers are still tied with his opponet is crazy. How could anyone think of voting for a guy who was convicted of coruption. But thats not a problem since he's Alaska's corrupt guy, nevermind that he's hurting the rest of the nation. :wall:

---

No post-trial polling has been conducted (There are likely to be a few out within a few days). However, if you are interested then you can read part of this, which uses a similar example to say:
"Let's assume that Stevens will also suffer a decline in his net approval score of 18 points. Since he's at roughly 50/50 now, that would put him in the range of 40 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove. Our regression model uses approval ratings for incumbent senators as one of its inputs, and thinks a decline of this magnitude would cost a senator about 6 points in the polls ... actually, 5.8 points. So what we're going to do is apply a 5.8 point penalty to Stevens' numbers in Alaska. Since the race was a toss-up before, this puts him about 6 points behind overall, making Mark Begich an 87 percent favorite to take his seat. That seems conservative to me, frankly, given that even the guys at RedState are abandoning Stevens, but it's what we'll run with until there's some polling out."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

It does seem incongruous, I admit. But it does underline the primacy of the will of the people. If felony conviction is not a written bar to election, the people can elect anyone to hold office.

It's a stretch, but stay with me a moment: Think of all the 3rd world nations where political opposition is jailed for years/decades. Mandela, etc. If not killed, they eventually get released. Sometimes, the people, having either changed their minds about the guy, or had their own opposition suppressed, or in a 'fit' of liberation-fever, want that convicted felon elevated to office.

Just a thought.

---

That's a good point.

Also, there's a lot of really trivial felonies out there, way beyond crimes that harm people in any way;
In Washington state under a new anti-online gambling law:

Quote:

---

Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

---

Modern times have led to loads of new felonies being created for stupid, trivial things like online gambling.

CR

Personally, I think anyone who's been in the US Congress for more than a few terms is almost certainly corrupt. No need for a trial to determine that. You can't stay in Washington for decades and not get dirt on you. The people who have the integrity not to be corrupted leave.