Ding Dong, Delay is indicted
Good Republicans, I know you. We share many of the same beliefs. We went to a good public school. We like our churches seperate from our government. We think everybody should get a fair shake in a court of law. I might not agree with everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. We take the constitution seriously - which means we believe that the fact that a right exists means it's ok to use it.
Go ahead. Let yourself feel it. That ugly stunted yell you feel building inside you is the sound of pure betrayal. Many of your Republican heroes have lied to you. They have smiled at you knowingly through your
television set, said they loved you and what you stand for, then turned right around and laughed at how gullible we all are and how easy it is to pick our pockets. They take polls. They stick their fingers in the wind. they figure it out. Then they send our kids to die, take our tax dollar and give it to their CEO buds, and set about turning the constitution on its head to achieve their disasterous legislative agenda - War, debt, pork, cronyism, abandonment of the poor and middle class. They ask you to pick up your piccolo and march into the sunset in your own personal super patriotic Nike ad. But their pitch falls just a little short, doesn't it? Doesn't it?
Delay is finally indicted. Frist is probed by the SEC. Tommy Brown gives a new meaning to the phrase "incompetent-pass-the-buck-crony."
Mind you I am not arguing that Democrats are better or worse. I am not arguing that Democrats deserve your vote because of this corruption. We will have to earn your vote based on the merits of our agenda. I am saying that this rotten GOP house is crumbling from the inside out. I can see it from way over here in the center. It's about time. That kind of disgraceful corruption cannot stand. As one pissed off American to another, I sincerely hope we can agree on that.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 5:21 PM |
| 
23 Comments:
As someone who doesn't speak for a single Republican, let me say this: We Republicans agree with you completely. We regret that we suck so bad and that our elected administration is as effective as an anvil in a rowboat. To our base let us say "sorry" as well. We are sorry that you handed us the reigns of power only to watch us piss it all away in 6 short years without accomplishing a fraction of our agenda. We are sorry that President Bush has pissed away his political capital in less than 8 months like so much cheap beer, and that his administration has compromised the core values that every conservative holds dear. We are sorry for Iraq, Schiavo, Bolton, Rove, the Plame case, New Orleans and Mr. Delay. Someday, when we've managed to put all this behind us and get our act together, we hope you'll forgive us these trespasses and trust us to take part in government again.
The key is power.
When Democrats were in total control, things were bad. There was corruption, there was cronyism, there were shady dealings.
Now the Republicans have been in power for 10 years, and absolute power for the last 5. The House leadership is rotten to the core.
Power corrupts. It's time to flush them out. End the K Street Project. Give the other guys a chance for a while.
I can't help but think of the blogs, particularly Kos, that are always saying that the base of the Democratic Party needs to wrestle control from party leadership and the DLC. That conflict is inherent in the Democratic party, it will always exist, and that's what you get with plurality.
The unwavering faith in the GOP leadership and the conservative agenda that was held by, what seemed like, almost every single Republican is admirable in a strange sort of way. It would be nice to think we could completely trust our leaders to know what is best, to have complete trust in the party, and to wholly believe in the cause, but its the cynics amongst us (can't all be Dems can they?) that know you'll end up getting screwed in the long run.
I wish someone could explain the absoluteness of Republican base support that lead the party to so many election victories, but I would also like to understand why it took so long for those people to second guess the GOP leadership. It's not like there wasn't a lot of people (albeit Democrats) pointing out how fucked up things were. That sounds a lot like "I told you so," but it's more like "why did you shut us out?"
It's possible the base could wrestle the power from the leadership, as we Dem activists are always trying to do, but the GOP base is complicit in everything the leadership does. More likely, the recent history that Luke cited is cyclical, and we're in for another round of more of the same.
do you read what you write? Let me get this straight: Power corrupts. When the Democrats were in power, they were corrupt. Now that the Republicans are in power, they are corrupt. Thus, we should replace the Republicans with Democrats, giving that side a chance, even though your thesis is "power corrupts," thus, does it matter who is power, since this "power" will corrupt?
I'm not a republican, but you need to do better than a vague "the key is power." I mean, if you are given more "power" and freedom at your place of employment, are you suddenly a more corrupt individual? I have no idea the motivating factors of Delay, though I tend to think he would have pulled the same shit if he was in the minority.
-sal
Howzabout we wait until Delay actually is convicted of something? The indictment is, to be charitable, squishy.
Er...hang on here. Chris, you wrote:
" I can see it from way over here in the center."
BWAHAHA!
OK - it's satire. I get it now.
Not bad. Not Scrappleface, but not bad.
MBerg
The point is that the Democrats took sixty years to become corrupt.
When the Republicans had their chance, they managed to become corrupt in five- and the scale and nakedness of their corruption makes anything the Democrats manged to get away with look like harmless little pranks.
Have you never worked with someone who had never been in a position of power, then they are told to take charge of some meaningless task, and then they become a total dick? Lucky you.
"Power corrupts" is such a truism in government because so much power is centralized in government.
Let's take a look a Dean Zimmerman for an example. He's not a D or an R, and he's in deep shit. Of course, as Mitch says, Dean hasn't been convicted of anything yet, so we should all give him the benefit of the doubt, right?
I think the salient point in this current Republican era is the second half of the phrase, that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Luke rightly brings up the K Street project as an example of the drive to make this a Republican dominated country. Does anyone doubt that Rove's goal has always been to marginalize the opposition until they are hardly an opposition at all.
The goal all along has been absolute power for the Republican Party, which is why the party's base should have seen these problems coming.
Unfortunately it is rarely possible to discern who has the constitution to remain ethical once this "power" has been thrust upon them.
Mr. O, I've been trying to keep this to myself, but this is the reason Wellstone was, and still is, reveared. Its also the reason he had to break his promise to only serve two terms. Politicians who can gain power and not succumb to temptations only come along once in a blue moon.
Some dead white guys gave Mr. O's question a lot of deep thought about 200 years ago.
The answer they came up with was splitting up power through federalism and the balance of power.
The subsequent years have shown they weren't totally right but one civil war and 20-some amendments later, we're still here.
The solution is to play interests off against each other.
The problem with the Republicans is that they control EVERYTHING: the house, the Senate, the judiciary, and the executive (and the fourth branch, the media, too).
Break it up.
Of course, I'd like to see 10 solid years of Democratic control to reverse the damage they've done.
But all in all, I believe in divided government.
BTW, one of the things the founders didn't anticipate very well was the rise of national political parties.
They thought the new nation would turn primarily on the virtue of regional rivalries.
Luke, you should try talking out of you mouth for a change.
Our founding fathers agreed on about as much as our current politicians do.
Consider 3/5th compromise, bicameral legislature, the need for the constitutional convention at all...
What is different is that then, they found solutions to the problems and worked out compromises.
Now, not so much as evidenced by the 22 who voted against confirmation for Roberts.
-Censored
That was pretty incoherent, but I gleaned that you strongly disagree with Scalia and Thomas's judicial philosophy of strict constructivism then?
Well Tom,
I don't really give a crap about their’s, your’s or anyone else’s judicial philosophy. I care about actions. So for judges that would be decisions. For someone like your widely “reveared” Wellstone, it would be violating a campaign commitment and running for a third term.
I’m sure you thought that was a very intelligent, oh so clever remark you made. And that’s sad. I was referring to the actions of bodies of representative assemblies. The Congress of the Colonies and the Constitutional Convention, in contrast to the present Senate. Your comment about the judiciary, and lacked any historical depth or even a comparison. That sloppy thinking might have worked in your womyn’s studies class, but you need to sharpen it up for the real world.
It’s like me saying the Vikings don’t have a “Conservative” offense and that’s why they keep losing. (While it may be true, it’s just a non-sequitur.)
-Censored
The comment wasn't so much about the judiciary as it was about the constitution, which has everything to do with what we are discussing and you know that.
And thanks for your concern about about my ability to function in the "real world", but I'm not the one who just had a meltdown on a comment board in response to a legitimate question. For someone who believes in "actions" over all else, yours sure are erratic.
News Flash Tommy-Boy,
Real World != Message Board.
Although that was the cleverest application of the "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt defense" I've seen in a while, the conversation still isn't about the judiciary.
Now I will give you an out, got an example of our forefathers acting like Nancy and the Boys have recently?
(No fair bring up the Aaron Burr self destruction.)
-Censored.
I seem to recall a content-wide conflict our forefathers engaged in about 150 years ago...now what was that called?
Oh that's right. The Civil War.
A lesson in US history, just for you Censored.
The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner
May 22, 1856
When Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
Wah wah waaaaaah.
March 28, 1834
Senate Censures President
June 24, 1834
First Cabinet Rejection
Relations between the Senate and the president had become so embittered that the president delayed submitting the names of his recent cabinet appointees for confirmation until the final week of the congressional session. By June of 1834, the Senate stood evenly divided between supporters of President Andrew Jackson and anti-Jackson men. The president's assault on the Second Bank of the United States, launched two years earlier, had precipitated this split and led to the formation of the opposition Whig party. In March, the Senate had censured Jackson for his efforts to remove government funds from that federally chartered quasi-private institution. When Jackson protested this extraconstitutional act, the Senate refused to print his message in its journal.
Nine months earlier, Jackson had selected Roger Taney (pictured), the architect of his antibank policies, as Secretary of the Treasury. Senators complained that the unconfirmed Taney held his office illegally. As Jackson biographer Robert Remini has written, "Whether this was true did not disturb Jackson one whit." Yet Jackson knew that sooner or later he would have to send Taney's name to the Senate and, in Remini's words, "he knew that senators would tear into the nomination like ravenous wolves to get revenge for the removal of the deposits and poor Taney would be made to bear much of the pain and humiliation."
Finally, on June 23, 1834, Jackson sent forth Taney's nomination. On the next day a probank majority in the Senate, including both senators from Taney's Maryland, denied him the post by a vote of 18 to 28, making him the first cabinet nominee in history to suffer the Senate's formal rejection.
January 16, 1837
Senate Reverses a Presidential Censure
This one is really funny:
July 31, 1841
Vagabond Statue
On July 31, 1841, a sailing vessel from Leghorn, Italy, docked at the Washington Navy Yard. It carried a massive ten-foot-high, twelve-ton marble statue of a seated man wearing only a Roman toga. The artist was the noted American sculptor Horatio Greenough; the marble man, modeled after the Greek god Zeus, was George Washington. Several years earlier, Congress had commissioned Greenough to prepare this work for permanent display in the recently completed Capitol Rotunda.
Controversy erupted almost immediately. Capitol officials directed that the piece be placed at the center of the Rotunda. Sculptor Greenough protested. He wanted it moved off to the side so that light coming through the top of the wooden dome, which at that time covered the Rotunda, would strike Washington’s face at a flattering angle. By placing the statue in the center, the nearly vertical light would, he feared, shade the lower portions of the face “and give a false and constrained effect to the whole monument.” He lost that argument.
The second point of controversy related to the work’s design. Despite the era’s neo-classical revival, few on Capitol Hill seemed ready for a half-naked father-of-the-country with well-developed and fully exposed shoulder muscles. His upraised right arm, draped with what appeared to be a towel across his biceps, gave the impression that he was preparing for a bath. Within weeks, incensed members of Congress demanded the work’s removal. Sculptor Greenough seized the opportunity for a better location and suggested a perch on the Capitol’s west front. He also lost that argument.
Two years after workmen had hauled the twelve-ton statue up the east-front stairs, they hauled the work back down and placed it in the center of the Capitol’s eastern plaza. During the winter of 1844, carpenters built a small shed to protect the underdressed patriarch from snow and ice. Come spring, the unsightly shed was removed; it was seldom replaced in the winters that followed.
March 26, 1848
The Senate Arrests a Reporter
On March 26, 1848, the Senate arrested a journalist and imprisoned him in a Capitol committee room. This unusual event occurred during one of the most turbulent decades in American history. Throughout the 1840s, territorial disputes with Mexico over the Republic of Texas, and with Great Britain over Oregon, inflamed the Senate's proceedings. Out of this agitation emerged a question that the framers of the Constitution, sixty years earlier, thought they had answered affirmatively: Could the Senate keep a secret?
All of this encompases just 50 years of US Senate history.
It does represent 50 years of history.
Er...wait...14 years. (The 14 at the last end of the 50?) Other than Byrd & Thurmon - 50 years is a long time for a legislator.
So hows about you refocus on the founding fathers?
(I know its hard for you ADD kids, but stay on topic...)
-Censored
You initially said forefathers, but if you want to change the criteria to founding fathers, I can oblige.
The first time the Senate refused to confirm a Presidential appointment was in its first year of history. The president at the time was one George Washington.
August 5, 1789
During the month of August 1789, it established two precedents that particularly irritated President George Washington.
On August 5, for the first time, the Senate refused to confirm a presidential appointee. Ignoring the budding concept of "senatorial courtesy," President George Washington had failed to consult with Georgia’s two senators before he nominated Benjamin Fishbourn to the post of naval officer for the Port of Savannah. One of those senators, James Gunn, favored another candidate who was a close political ally. Gunn promptly engineered the Senate rejection of Fishbourn.
encompass: to constitute or include
Advantage: Elko
You can't be serious.
You're trying to create equivalency between a local (patronage) position of port goober and a SCOTUS justice.
If you do things in GA, its customary to at least pay lip service to the delegation from GA.
This has nothing to do with local politics.
-Censored
I can be serious. The issue isn't what position is being appointed, but the notion of "Senatorial courtesy" that you advocate (as long as the President is of your party).
You asked, I answered. You changed your criteria, I answered. Now you simply dismiss, and I have no recourse but to, once again, teach a history lesson, and then call you a chump.
The Supreme Court had little relevance until Justice Marshall took over in 1801, and hadn't realized its full role in the system of checks and balances until Marbury
v. Madison in 1803. However, the very establishment of the court was opposed by the anti-federalists.
Judiciary Act of 1789
The existence of a separate federal judiciary had been controversial during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists had denounced the judicial power as a potential instrument of nationalist tyranny. Even after ratification, some opponents of a strong judiciary urged that the federal court system should be limited to a Supreme Court and perhaps local admiralty judges. The Congress, however, decided to establish a system of federal trial courts with broader jurisdiction, thereby creating an arm for enforcement of national laws within each state.
Chump.
Post a Comment
<< Home