Then we'd just be left with Joe Biden...the man too dumb to profit from his position.

Shorter version of this article:

"All Democrats are crooks. We should look under every rock for every possible technicality we can nail them with, regardless of whether they committed a crime. Also, we should make sure that every candidate is thoroughly qualified for the office they seek. Sshhh...ixnay on the alin-Pay."

BigWoodenSpoon: Shorter version of this article:

"All Democrats are crooks. We should look under every rock for every possible technicality we can nail them with, regardless of whether they committed a crime. Also, we should make sure that every candidate is thoroughly qualified for the office they seek. Sshhh...ixnay on the alin-Pay."

while his examples are democrats, i expect such a thing will nab both

besides he is using those two because they were life long public servents, and not part businessmen like the croked republicans

as soon as someone points out that someone is corrupt and can't be trusted, they stand up and say 'Hey! I'm for/against abortion! Gay mwarrage! War on Drugs! TERRORISTS! BOO!' and we all forget about the fact that they're all corrupt and can't be trusted.

The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

Look - both parties are corrupt. right down to the bone. neither one of them give a damn about you and me. But, as a group, we're stupid. we keep thinking that 'R' and 'D' mean something. we still keep thinking that there is a difference between parties. we have so much evidence to the contrary that you'd think we'd all just get pissed off and vote independent next election....but all evidence suggests otherwise.

overlord_mike: BigWoodenSpoon: Shorter version of this article:

"All Democrats are crooks. We should look under every rock for every possible technicality we can nail them with, regardless of whether they committed a crime. Also, we should make sure that every candidate is thoroughly qualified for the office they seek. Sshhh...ixnay on the alin-Pay."

while his examples are democrats, i expect such a thing will nab both

besides he is using those two because they were life long public servents, and not part businessmen like the croked republicans

part = past

Weaver95: as soon as someone points out that someone is corrupt and can't be trusted, they stand up and say 'Hey! I'm for/against abortion! Gay mwarrage! War on Drugs! TERRORISTS! BOO!' and we all forget about the fact that they're all corrupt and can't be trusted.

The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

Look - both parties are corrupt. right down to the bone. neither one of them give a damn about you and me. But, as a group, we're stupid. we keep thinking that 'R' and 'D' mean something. we still keep thinking that there is a difference between parties. we have so much evidence to the contrary that you'd think we'd all just get pissed off and vote independent next election....but all evidence suggests otherwise.

well put

Weaver95: The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

And both of them were defeated in the next election. So the system worked. I'd be a little cautious in demanding that any politician accused of a crime be automatically booted. Seems like an all too easy way to get rid of the troublemaker or the guy that won't go along with the leadership.

Weaver95:

Look - both parties are corrupt. right down to the bone. neither one of them give a damn about you and me. But, as a group, we're stupid. we keep thinking that 'R' and 'D' mean something. we still keep thinking that there is a difference between parties. we have so much evidence to the contrary that you'd think we'd all just get pissed off and vote independent next election....but all evidence suggests otherwise.

Has anybody ever noticed this before: Democrats and Republicans tend to be corrupt inversely depending on their position.

Democrats tend to be corrupt at the lower levels. For instance, Boston and Chicago are two of the most corrupt cities in the country and are run exclusively by Democrats. Boston is a joke, we can't even keep our own firemen off cocaine long enough to not get hit by falling air conditioners because their union is so strong politically that any changes in the drug testing policy have to be tied to substantial raises for the fire department.

The Big Dig cost federal tax payers billions of dollars because the politically connected firms running it kept making "mistakes" (like "forgetting" to include the biggest building in the city in their blueprints) and doing such a shiatty job with the construction that they had to be rehired on again to fark it up even worse.

As you can see with Obama, Chicago is terribly corrupt except Obama is the only one who seemed to have kept his nose clean. He is now president. After the job the press and internet did investigating that city I think something would have turned up by now had he been doing anything.

Conversely, Republican cities tend to be more or less on the level, except their Presidential administrations are the most corrupt in the history of this nation. It's just a weird paradox. I know Clinton wasn't perfect about this either but he's better then the other side, and Carter was too clean for his own good.

SnakeLee

I think you are mixing up "corruption" with "incompetence" a bit. Not to mention, "They haven't found anything yet so they must be squeaky clean."

I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt. Underhanded, yes, but congress went along with it knowingly and willingly so we should probably be more pissed at them, especially after 06.

Dinki: Weaver95: The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

And both of them were defeated in the next election. So the system worked. I'd be a little cautious in demanding that any politician accused of a crime be automatically booted. Seems like an all too easy way to get rid of the troublemaker or the guy that won't go along with the leadership.

I think if you get caught stuffing wads of cash into your jock strap and then waddling out the door - that's the sort of behavior that warrants immediate dismissal from the party.

Look, I get what you're saying. I really do. But the political party organizations (which are separate and distinct from the election process by the way) NEED to take a stand. they need to make it clear to the membership that corruption isn't to be tolerated. kicking members out of the club when they violate ethical standards would tend to keep the corruption to a minimum, not to mention it'd make me feel a heck of a lot better about our rulers.

Crosshair: SnakeLee

I think you are mixing up "corruption" with "incompetence" a bit. Not to mention, "They haven't found anything yet so they must be squeaky clean."

I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt. Underhanded, yes, but congress went along with it knowingly and willingly so we should probably be more pissed at them, especially after 06.

I've always said; never assume conspiracy when incompetency explains everything.

Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

I think it's a good idea, but I think we'd have a LOT of seats to fill.

Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.



cor⋅rupt /kəˈrʌpt/
-adjective

2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.

40yoVirgin: Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.



cor⋅rupt /kəˈrʌpt/
-adjective

2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.

You have just described almost every member of congress.

40yoVirgin: Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

I put the Bush administration more under "Incompetent" and "Power grab" than "corrupt".

Crosshair: 40yoVirgin: Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.



cor⋅rupt /kəˈrʌpt/
-adjective

2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.

You have just described almost every member of congress.

40yoVirgin: Crosshair: I would hardly call the Bush administration corrupt.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

I put the Bush administration more under "Incompetent" and "Power grab" than "corrupt".

It depends on when you get your pay out then to qualify as corrupt in your book? You have to profit directly from your own actions, but scratching the back of the folks who will make sure that for the rest of your natural born days are covered isn't corruption? Misuse of public funds and insuring a lack of oversight for the dispersion of those funds isn't corrupt? Especially going to no bid contracts, with cronies and friends of your Administration and closest political allies isn't "corruption"?

It's an interesting world you live in. Putting off your payment, or paying back your handlers for your early backing is just as corrupt as pocketing cash for no-bid contracts or setting up no show union gigs for friends.

In essence, Bush is going to be rolling in the no show jobs for how many think tanks, foundations, and the like, and the padded out speaking gigs for the rest of his days. Not bad work, if you can get it.

hubiestubert
Especially going to no bid contracts, with cronies and friends of your Administration and closest political allies isn't "corruption"?

I assume you're including Clinton then, as he gave a no bid contract to Halliburton long before Bush. Or is that somehow "different"?

I_C_Weener: Then we'd just be left with Joe Biden...the man too dumb to profit from his position.

If Joe Biden is dumb I can only assume these letters I'm typing are illegible.

Let's let Norm Coleman be the first to be tested.

Weaver95: as soon as someone points out that someone is corrupt and can't be trusted, they stand up and say 'Hey! I'm for/against abortion! Gay mwarrage! War on Drugs! TERRORISTS! BOO!' and we all forget about the fact that they're all corrupt and can't be trusted.

The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

Look - both parties are corrupt. right down to the bone. neither one of them give a damn about you and me. But, as a group, we're stupid. we keep thinking that 'R' and 'D' mean something. we still keep thinking that there is a difference between parties. we have so much evidence to the contrary that you'd think we'd all just get pissed off and vote independent next election....but all evidence suggests otherwise.

I agree with the principle of your arguement, but I would hope a person's party would stand behind them until they are convicted in a court of law.

wage0048: I agree with the principle of your arguement, but I would hope a person's party would stand behind them until they are convicted in a court of law.

Or better yet be the ones checking up on them in the first place to make sure they're not doing something shady.

Then again, they're probably ALL doing something shady, so it wouldn't matter.

Weaver95: as soon as someone points out that someone is corrupt and can't be trusted, they stand up and say 'Hey! I'm for/against abortion! Gay mwarrage! War on Drugs! TERRORISTS! BOO!' and we all forget about the fact that they're all corrupt and can't be trusted.

The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

Look - both parties are corrupt. right down to the bone. neither one of them give a damn about you and me. But, as a group, we're stupid. we keep thinking that 'R' and 'D' mean something. we still keep thinking that there is a difference between parties. we have so much evidence to the contrary that you'd think we'd all just get pissed off and vote independent next election....but all evidence suggests otherwise.


that's too easy and facile an analysis. The National democratic party actually ran someone AGAINST willie jefferson in Both elections since his indictment. That's a far cry from the rpeublican behavior of changing their partie's ethics rule so Tom DeLay could remain a LEADER of his party after HIS indictment.


Similarly I don't recall anyone in the dem caucus denouncing the activist partisan prosecutors who were out to get willie J.

And in General the "K street Project" and the Jack Abramoff Scandal (12 convicted and counting) represented the most organized, extensive and blatant corruption this town has seen for at least a century and possibly all the way back to US Grant's administration. The are Corrupt PEOPLE on both sides of the aisle no question, but only one party has embraced systemic corruption on the scale of the GOP

wage0048
I agree with the principle of your arguement, but I would hope a person's party would stand behind them until they are convicted in a court of law.

I have to disagree, some of these cases are very clear without a necessity to go to court. Politicians should be held to a much higher standard than "innocent until proven guilty". They need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I don't want a representative who is doubtful, nor even questionable, we deserve to have representation that is better than that. I would hope that an honorable person in that position would resign to allow someone untainted to perform those duties, if acquitted it could be arranged for him to resume the office, perhaps an agreement the placeholder would step down, or he can run for re-election. But some of the people we've had hold office in the face of blatant guilt is ridiculous.

Dinki: Weaver95: The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

And both of them were defeated in the next election. So the system worked. I'd be a little cautious in demanding that any politician accused of a crime be automatically booted. Seems like an all too easy way to get rid of the troublemaker or the guy that won't go along with the leadership.


THIS.


On TFA though... Net Worth test for legislators? Sure! His second request, about establishing a political ruling class by only allowing "credentialed" candidates? Fark no, fark no, fark no.

The man has a great idea!

I_C_Weener: Then we'd just be left with Joe Biden...the man too dumb to profit from his position.

Biden spearheaded the new bankruptcy laws. He got some money from some credit card companies somewhere. Maybe he is the only one smart enough not to flaunt it.

Wraithbane: wage0048
I agree with the principle of your arguement, but I would hope a person's party would stand behind them until they are convicted in a court of law.

I have to disagree, some of these cases are very clear without a necessity to go to court. Politicians should be held to a much higher standard than "innocent until proven guilty". They need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I don't want a representative who is doubtful, nor even questionable, we deserve to have representation that is better than that. I would hope that an honorable person in that position would resign to allow someone untainted to perform those duties, if acquitted it could be arranged for him to resume the office, perhaps an agreement the placeholder would step down, or he can run for re-election. But some of the people we've had hold office in the face of blatant guilt is ridiculous.

Unless it is Obama.

FTFA: "How come Rep. Charlie Rangel (NY) owns so much property in New York and an expensive villa in the Dominican Republic? -- all of this on a representative's salary."

A representatives salary is $169,300. If your wife works, you're making well over $200,000 a year. It's even possible, with an income like that, that you might have been able to get a bank to loan you some money. Especially a couple of years ago.

Besides, Rangel doesn't own NY property. According to the news, he leases several rent-controlled apartments. While the landlord who owns the apartments is well within his rights to restrict him to one, he apparently feels fine renting it to a mostly absentee Congressman. As for this last, as an ex-Republican, I'd like to say there's something suspicious about this, but the truth is that if I were the landlord, I'd do the same thing: I'd take a Congressman over a typical NY tenant any day of the week.

Mind you, on the west coast, we feel most of the rest of the country are all a bunch of corrupt asswipes. But if forced to choose, I'd take the Northeast over the South any day of the week.

I agree with the income thing but disagree with credentials. The elitists will always have whatever credentials are needed so it really doesn't matter. All it would do is prevent a regular person from getting elected (however unlikely that is).

Unless of course the author means mandatory military service a la Heinlein. That I will vote for.

Honesty - Politics

Oil - Water


Anyone?...

Magorn
The are Corrupt PEOPLE on both sides of the aisle no question, but only one party has embraced systemic corruption on the scale of the GOP

It is ridiculous to claim that party affiliation is any honest indicator of some ethical standard. If anything, it seems Democrats are simply better at getting away with it, but just as corrupt as the Republicans. Do we really need to start tallying all the scandals Democrats have been involved in? As much as people loved to bring up the Keating Five regarding McCain, somehow they managed to ignore that four out of the five were Democrats. In the Abscam scandal, six congressmen, five Democrats and one Republican and a Democrat senator, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges. Rep. John Murtha was also indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler, refused to take the bribe. That's six Democrats to one Republican.

It takes a real ability to ignore reality to claim that either side is better or worse.

Magorn: The are Corrupt PEOPLE on both sides of the aisle no question, but only one party has embraced systemic corruption on the scale of the GOP

What? Last time I checked there were something on the order of double the corrupt Democrats in the last 10 years then corrupt Republicans.

A double "fark yes" on the former; a heavy-duty "fark no" on the latter.

If a government is of/by/for the people, and it was good enough for the founders (who seemed to do a good job - with major holes - in general), then surely we, in an age where we have much more access to information, can make better decisions. Establishing criteria for office (much like establishing testing guidelines) encourages learning for the test (or teaching to the test) and will attract the same nutball asshats we have now. Minus a few years to gain or fake the credentials.

We should examine the assets of our elected officials. Compare this to the earlier thread about SCOTUS' pay. If they're complaining about making too little, yet we have corrupt sleazebags as the longest serving members of the house (and getting gifts equivalent to Justice Roberts' annual salary), you're goddamn right we should know how the got there - shady deals with their former business partners, sweetheart options deals (hello VP Cheney), do-nothing board jobs in charities - most of which are already on their disclosure forms; and also examining the discrepancies between what they SAY they make and what they actually spend/how they actually live. Let's treat them like adults, but also like people in power.

If there's anything we should be strictly constructionist about, that slip of paper that Hancock signed suggests that power corrupts and that we should always be able to hold them accountable for their actions. It's time we exercise that right.

// end communication

FTA:

The nation can't afford nice-looking, well-spoken and well-meaning rookies running things. The Red Sox and the Patriots wouldn't permit it;

Isn't that pretty much exactly what the Patriots did when it came to Brady?

Nemo's Brother
Unless it is Obama.

Tell me where, in anything I've said, where I've implied different standards apply to the parties? I leave that to the brain dead partisan idiots who think that way and think everybody else does too. Oh, wait, that was what you did, wasn't it?

tzzhc4
Unless of course the author means mandatory military service a la Heinlein. That I will vote for.

I recently read an argument that said at least a veteran would have a better understanding of what he was asking service members to do. I'd have to agree, I've yet to meet a single civilian that truly understands what it's like to be active duty, despite what they think they know. But then, I also think that all officers should have to serve a mandatory four years enlisted before being commissioned.

Aw fark. Does this mean I have to report my earnings from lawn mowing?

I know that movie I bought was more than what I earn in a month but man, I mowed that lawn and DAMN if I have to pay taxes on that!

Weaver95: But, as a group, we're stupid.

Right on. I think this is the core of most of our problems. I forget who said it, but I don't think a truer statement has ever been uttered: "A person is smart. People are stupid." Alone, I think most people can rationally differ between right and wrong, and at least outline a reasonable ideology. The second we band together into political parties and whatnot, we turn into some kind of special-ed Voltron...Tardtron.

"Form feet and legs! Form arms and torso! Form wasteful spending and poor policy decisions! And, I'll form the head! Activate, straight party vote interlock! To the voting booths, Tardtron Force!"

If we did something like this we would quickly find that both parties are equilly corrupt. My guess is around 70%-80% of both parties would be taken down and the majority of those that are left will either just be really good at hiding their corruption or will have things found that are shady but not exactly illegal. Neither party is clean and I truely doubt one is more corrupt than the other.

I expect a shoop of Tardtron forthwith. It's too awesome not to be a new meme.

BigWoodenSpoon: Shorter version of this article:

"All Democrats are crooks. We should look under every rock for every possible technicality we can nail them with, regardless of whether they committed a crime. Also, we should make sure that every candidate is thoroughly qualified for the office they seek. Sshhh...ixnay on the alin-Pay."

We should also create a special task force to suss out those anti-American congress members

Dinki: Weaver95: The Republican party SHOULD have disowned ted stevens soon as he was CHARGED, let alone convicted. instead - he's still a member in good standing. Same with 'dollar bill' jefferson on the left winger side. Soon as that guy got caught with a couple thousand in his freezer - he should have been ejected from the party. It shouldn't have even been up for debate. But no - the democrats let the guy stay around.

And both of them were defeated in the next election. So the system worked. I'd be a little cautious in demanding that any politician accused of a crime be automatically booted. Seems like an all too easy way to get rid of the troublemaker or the guy that won't go along with the leadership.

Stevens lost by 100 votes or so. That's the RNC at work, not incumbency.

Doctor Funkenstein
I forget who said it, but I don't think a truer statement has ever been uttered: "A person is smart. People are stupid."

Agent K, MIB, now, if you would, look at this light a second.....

Wraithbane: Doctor Funkenstein
I forget who said it, but I don't think a truer statement has ever been uttered: "A person is smart. People are stupid."

Agent K, MIB, now, if you would, look at this light a second.....

Wait a second, my point is feasibility and rational solutions aren't monopolized by a single...*flash*...I had a great time at the carnival. I'm going to go buy a Chevrolet right now so I can come back in six cylinders of style next year. Thanks, Willy Wonka!

Wraithbane: Tell me where, in anything I've said, where I've implied different standards apply to the parties? I leave that to the brain dead partisan idiots who think that way and think everybody else does too.

Oh the sweet irony.

Isn't it interesting that we don't hear how the standards should be changed to something other than "innocent until proven guilty" until after one party has lost a controlling interest in Congress and is only a few weeks away from losing the whitehouse?

Wraithbane: Nemo's Brother
Unless it is Obama.

Tell me where, in anything I've said, where I've implied different standards apply to the parties? I leave that to the brain dead partisan idiots who think that way and think everybody else does too. Oh, wait, that was what you did, wasn't it?

tzzhc4
Unless of course the author means mandatory military service a la Heinlein. That I will vote for.

I recently read an argument that said at least a veteran would have a better understanding of what he was asking service members to do. I'd have to agree, I've yet to meet a single civilian that truly understands what it's like to be active duty, despite what they think they know. But then, I also think that all officers should have to serve a mandatory four years enlisted before being commissioned.

the Israelis do it that way. (or at least they did) supposedly it makes their military more competent.

I say we should implement this right away. Now we just need some body of people that can pass these great ideas into laws.

I'm just not sure how the idiot who wrote this column thinks that the $170k made by a member of the House of Representatives is somehow a "modest" salary. That puts you well inside the top 5% of households, even if your spouse makes no money at all.

travisormsby: I'm just not sure how the idiot who wrote this column thinks that the $170k made by a member of the House of Representatives is somehow a "modest" salary. That puts you well inside the top 5% of households, even if your spouse makes no money at all.

I would say it's difficult to uphold two households that are both classy as hell at that wage and fly between them, but who the fark am I kidding? That's a lot of money.

travisormsby: I'm just not sure how the idiot who wrote this column thinks that the $170k made by a member of the House of Representatives is somehow a "modest" salary. That puts you well inside the top 5% of households, even if your spouse makes no money at all.

Most politicians at the national level are independently wealthy to begin with. Mr Smith doesn't make it to Washington anymore.

My second hope is to introduce credentials to the election process. This has become an imperative during a technological age when voters are becoming increasingly illiterate, and people are elected because of personality or financial support that carry an awesome punch in this time of television and internet.

Critics will say this approach gives new life to the elitist government that John Adams had in mind during the 18th century. Not true. It's simply a recognition that the dream of Joe-six-pack running the federal government is over. Times have changed. Capable, trained people are needed to control the levers of power. The nation can't afford nice-looking, well-spoken and well-meaning rookies running things. The Red Sox and the Patriots wouldn't permit it; corporations wouldn't; large churches wouldn't. Why then permit it in the government?

Establish, I say, basic qualifications for each elected position. Require resumes of candidates. Then let qualified people slug it out.

These are two of my hopes. Will you help me make them come true?

This would immediately be challenged by every single prospective candidate who would be caught out by the law, taken to the Supreme Court and beaten to a messy, splattering death.