Congress- New Management, Same Corruption

[Xiahou]

Here's just a taste of some of the stories that I've read about over the last few days:

William Rep. Jefferson Indicted

Jefferson was indicted today by a federal grand jury on 16 charges related to alleged official corruption. He has the distinction of being the first federal official ever to be indicted for allegedly breaking the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Rep. Paul Kanjorksi funnels money to bankrupt business owned/run by family members
This one is really too good- you'll just have to read it.

Diane Feinstein - Military Contracts
This one is tough to find coverage of. CREW used to have a really good article excoriating her, but someone reminded them that they're only supposed to go after Republicans and they removed all references to it.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Lastly, Earmark Reform?

The new game that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He is taking the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic that Democrats promised, voters might want their ballots back.

[Odin]

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

This time around though there is disillusionment with the whole lot of them, and dems would be wise to take note of what happened in 06 to the majority republicans.

the federal government has become far to big an entity it was never meant to be this way.

[Don Corleone]

I think low voter turnout tends to favor Democrats. Therefore, making the public at large feel disenfrancished is actually in their best interest. The Republicans' only hope for competitiveness was to remain the party of reform and limited government. Sadly, they've blackened their reputation so thoroughly, even I don't believe the crap coming out of their usual channels any more (if Ken Mehlmann calls my house asking for a donation one more time, you might actually see me on the evening news one of these days...).

I think it's time for me to take an election or two off. Maybe when 20% of the population is the best turnout they can get, real 3rd and 4th parties might actually make some inroads.

[Lemur]

I think low voter turnout tends to favor Democrats.

I have no data at my fingertips, but I know I've read the reverse, what with the motivated religious right base ... anyway, I don't want to get too bent out of shape, but I think this is a questionable position.

If the democrats retain control of both houses, by any margin, and gain control of the White House in '08, you can kiss any chance of meaningful reform goodbye. It's a shame, really. We're going to hop from one-party control to one-party control, which sort of honks me off.

If only Bush and the G.O.P. hadn't covered themselves in quite so much ignominy, we wouldn't be facing this state of affairs. Why is a split government so hard to achieve these days?

[Don Corleone]

I don't know if you've noticed what's been going on over the right side of the fence, but the Religious Right won't be tilting the balance in favor of the Republicans any time soon. They're angry about a bunch of issues and they see themselves as taken for granted. James Dobson has been threatening to advise all Christians who value their integrity to sit the next election out (no, that's not why I'm considering it ). In fact, they claim it was their lackluster support at the polls that cost the Republicans their House & Senate leadership in 2006. You can take issue all you want with their interpretation of events, I know I certainly do, but the point I'm trying to make is that they're not carrying water for anybody right now.

Remember, these are social, not fiscal conservatives. They're not pro free-market reforms (like myself) and they're not necessarily pro-big business either, and they aren't necessarily opposed to heavy government interference in the economy. Those are stances they pick up and drop in response to who is willing to support them on what they actually do care about, social issues. They are p off that:

-The defense of marriage act never got traction
-That Bush hasn't pushed harder on religious freedom in China
-That Republicans in general haven't enacted more of their legislation.
-That many Republicans, when reporters investegated, turned out to be as scandalous in their personal lives as their Democrat counterparts (shocker). The fact that themselves tend to be scandal ridden too seems to have little consideration in their 'righteous anger'.

My comment about lower voter turnout favoring Democrats really should be explained better. Assume everyone that's interested in politics for whatever reason (NRA, pro-choice, enviornmentalists, whomever) finally decided that their one issue just wasn't going to be treated fairly and took their marbles and went home.

Who would be left? People who make their living off of government, federal service employees and the media. Almost all Democrat.

[Marshal Murat]

FINALLY! Jefferson has been indited!

Hallejulah!