I’m a GooGoo (Good Government) fan from way back. As someone who believes deeply that government has always had powerful role to play in shaping society, I’m obviously forced to confront the times when that role is abused.
I’ve believed for a while that the direct financial ties between GOP lawmakers and regulators and the laws and rules they write would be fertile ground for a Democratic party that could clean up its own act.
Sadly, it looks like that’s not going to happen.
On the margins, we’re seeing some scandal-slinging by the Democrats, but the issues never rise to the level they should because the slingers are so nakedly partisan that the charges can readily be dismissed.
Here’s a case in point:
Over at the Huffington Report today, one of the lead stories is headlined:
DeLay, Hastert, 31 Other Politicians Paid-Off By Indicted Lobbyist Abramoff To Help Block His Clients’ Rival Casino…
Now in case you’re not following things closely, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert are Republican Congressmembers from Texas and Illinois.
Let’s click through to the AP story, which opens with the following:
Nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino while the lawmakers collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.
and goes on to point out what Hastert did:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, held a fundraiser at Abramoff’s Signatures restaurant in Washington on June 3, 2003, that collected at least $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from the lobbyist’s firm and tribal clients.
Seven days later, Hastert wrote Norton urging her to reject the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians’ request for a new casino. Hastert’s three top House deputies also signed the letter.
followed closely with what Democratic Senator Harry Reid did:
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record), R-Nev. The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe sent another $5,000 to Reid’s group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.
The AP headline, by the way, was
Lawmakers Acted on Heels of Abramoff Gifts
So how freaking partisan and cheap a shot was it for the HuffPo folks to take to rewrite the headline as they did – focusing instead on two Republicans?
Look, people get to be partisan and take partisan shots. Democratic drum-beater Josh Marshall is raising funds to hire a muckraking researcher. How much muck do you think will get raked about John “MBNA” Moran?
But there’s a serious cost to this, which is that the voters see the sleaze-flinging as partisan noise, and ignore the real decay and filth that’s slowly accumulating.
The GOP is too firmly tied to its corporate sponsors to institutionally change anytime soon.
The Democrats could do well in this case – by genuinely doing good.
I’m not holding my breath or anything, but a fella can hope.
Update: The new headline is:
“AP: 33 Politicians Received Total Of $830K From Indicted Lobbyist Abramoff And His Clients To Block Rival Casino:” Cool. wonder if other folks complained, or Arianna is reading WoC…
Do you mean all that environmental wacko legislation that is stopping us from drilling locally instead of importing oil? Or is it the blocking of building refineries by the same.
How about blocking the repair of a fence on our southern border with environmental law as the main blocking device.
Regulation and a leftist activist judiciary is how you liberals get things done. That’s because a majority of Americans see you as the lying, socialist perverts you really are. Knowing that you can’t work through the democratic process. So you lie, regulate and subvert the constitution to get your way. I think the words “traitorous scum” are accurate.
So how exactly is it inconsistent with Delay’s, Hastert’s, et. al’s previously stated positions that they’re opposed to expanding Indian gaming?
It’s not as if any of these guys were once in favor of expanding Indian gaming but now suddenly did a 180 when they began receiving contributions.
RA, I can tell you’re holding a lot back; don’t be afraid to speak up!
A.L.
The fundamental failure of the Party is that it is NOT middle class based.
Democrats are the party of Malibu millionaires (Geffen, Moore, etc); Wall Street social engineers (Soros, Bing, etc) and various ethnic spoils Tammany-inheritors (Sharpton, Jackson, etc).
NONE of these people or interest groups are focused on Good Government and reform the way the Progressives were in the 20’s and 30’s. They are focused on either social engineering to “remake mankind” ala feminists like Barbara Ehrenreich’s hope to destroy the nuclear family and replace it with amorphous social structures and serial affairs or they are interested like Jessie Jackson in simply shaking down business and government for some “really quick money” to quote Jimmy Swaggart.
Don’t expect that to change. Dems can be successful when they pose as Middle Class advocates (Carter, Clinton) but the core of the Party is absolutely hostile to Middle Class interests.
What is more promising is a split in the Republicans if they can crush Dems; Western Populism/Progressivism based on Middle Class values promising efficient and clean government to expand the Middle Class as much as possible. What is worth watching is the Katrina refugees in the West and how they process greater living space (more affordable real estate); cleaner government and greater communityy involvement.
Funny to still be focusing on the so-called collapse of the Democratic party when just today Dems united with centrist Republicans to block another budget-buster bill.
Looks to me like the Republican party is collapsing, with the center finally coming loose from the very radical extremists that have hijacked the political process in this country.
There is a God, perhaps, after all, and he does love America.
AL — it seems the only game in town is to get elected in ’06. The truth, debating what is best for the country, figuring out what our strategy should be — these are all unimportant concerns. And please note my comment applies to Pubs as well as Dems. The short term myopathy that applies to the corporate sector is here in American politics in full bloom.
I would enjoy a rational debate about how to fight the GWOT. Anybody know where there is one?
It is too bad centrists don’t have another feasible place to go, given that the Democrats are at least as beholden to their own partisan wing. I suspect the result may be a lot of folks just dropping out of the process altogether, seeing no-one who represents their interests, and I don’t consider that a good result for the nation as a whole.
Eventually one or the other party will come to their senses and favor populism over ideology again, but it remains to be seen which & when that will happen. AL’s right: the Democrats are blowing a golden opportunity to take on the reformist mantle, but doing so will require casting off both the big dollar lobbyists which have been filling the pockets of both parties as well as their own zealots who repulse moderate voters. No signs of either happening, yet.
I think we are more likely to elect a series of independents who shape politics from the middle. There was an article in ‘the atlantic’ last month about the new ‘toqueville’ journeys (ie french guy touring US, seeing how we act etc. etc). He was at a democratic ‘brainstorm’ session where the primary topic was ‘raising money’.
No new ideas, no new plans, no reshaping of the modern american pollitical landscape, no stepping out on a limb to turn the tide against beaurocratic spending… the number one concern is there isn’t enough money.
And so the democratic party might as well be dead. But the republicans are fast on their heels. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Pass these banners on to others and place them on your website.
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/election.png
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/wage.png
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/prescriptionbenefit.png
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/petitions.htm
John deaux – If you have something substantial to contribute, please do so. Spamming and running doesn’t qualify.
#7
Hogwash! The Dems are no where near as beholden to their radical wing as the Repubs. They might try, but they’ve not delivered the goods.
If they were, who knows, perhaps they’d get elected. That’s how the Republicans did it, essentially giving direct policy access to the nuts in exchange for monolithic support and loyalty.
Deep down, I tend to view a lot of the sqawking from the Right about how the Dems shouldn’t appeal to their radical base as being motivated by the fear they might, given what it has done for them.
Was a good enough model to get elected but it’s a terrible way to run the country, as we’re seeing now. This would be true for either extreme, I believe, BTW, but that is not the situation the dems are or have been in. Look at Clinton. In fact, his populist appeal and centrism is why the Radical Right did everything in their power to bring him down…they’re afraid of Clinton-type politicians who can cross party boundaries. I believe they commonly refer to this type of governance as “politcal prostitution” or pandering and have been successful at portraying such politicans as lacking moral conviction (which the media, who loves this simple-minded kind of crap, buys hook line and sinker).
Watch what they’ll do to John McCain if he runs. He’s got powerful populist appeal, for mostly good reason, and I know a lot of Dems, myself included, would give him a good hard look, depending on who the Dems put up. I like the man, honestly, and tend to trust his judgment. If he ran on a platform of bringing Americans together across party lines to solve our mounting problems, he’d be hard to beat. But like I said, lots of powerful interests have more to lose than gain with someone like this, and they’ll go after him with all they got…which is everything at the moment, because that is the American Bush has created.
For the record I am against all political persuasions allying with radical elements and forsaking centrism (or the majority will) to win or maintain political power. I am not a Democrat because I like what they’re doing either…politics sucks in this country. I vote Dem only out of pure fear for what the Republicans have shown themselves capable of. FWIW.
Interestingly, the Repubs avoided prosecution for breaking campaign laws in Texas yesterday by agreement with Travis Co. Attorney Escamilla to abide by the laws which prevent corporate donations to campaigns (other than admin costs).
Escamilla refused to comment on the inactivity of the State Ethics Commission which has the job of oversight.
Yesterday, the head of procurement for Iraqi reconstruction left when deposits into his Swiss bank account from a major contractor were revealed.
Use of torture to produce information which can’t be trusted is suffering from a bad image.
Looks like Ted Stevens isn’t resigning as he threatened even though his now infamous Bridge to Nowhere has been eliminated from transportation spending legislation.
Yes, A.L., bleak for the GOP. But no doubt in corporate boardrooms the money is flowing right now to try and whitewash them once again.
WR #11 – The supposedly-centrist-run Democrats have a strange way of showing their dedication to moderation when they selected Dean as their leader, a fellow who didn’t start his rise to national power until he shrugged off his moderate ways as governor for a hardline approach designed to appeal to the party partisans. I guess we’ll see what happens as the Democrats swing hard away from Clinton’s DLC Third-Wayers, as Dean seems determined to try and take the party (or in his vernacular, “back to our roots.”)
As the saying goes, follow the money. You’ll find a majority of contributions to both parties are from partisans who expect adherence to the party line. This limits the influence of moderates who by definition aren’t as gung-ho about spending massive amounts for causes, and as campaigns have gotten more and more expensive to run this has increased the power of the True Believers in the parties. Doesn’t mean we’re going to see a repeat of McGovern or Goldwater anytime soon, but the increasing polarization of the parties is hard to ignore.
I voted for McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary, but I don’t know if he has the temperament to be a good President. He has a reputation as being a guy who won’t listen to people once he’s formed a negative opinion of them (i.e. stubborn) and by his own admission has anger management issues. That’s not a big deal for a Senator, but the President has much greater diplomatic and foreign policy obligations where both could manifest into major problems.
It should be pointed out that the problems you project for McCain in a Republican primary are the same ones which sunk Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primaries last year: just too moderate to appeal to the party partisans. If Lieberman had gone up against Bush, I’d have had a hard time voting against him.
Political truth: everyone thinks they are moderate and everyone else is radical.
#13
This idea that Dean is a radical is a Republican/media creation that has no support in Dean’s actual policy decisions. It seems to be largely based on his vocal and strident opposition to Bush and the Iraq war last primary season. Lieberman is a much better example perhaps although in many ways Dems regard him as a conservative, not a centrist.
Re: McCain and temperament…please. What kind of temperament does Bush have? He acts more like an petulant little boy whenever he slips out of his Rove-created character. World leaders and citizens alike laugh at the man at least, and hate him at worst. He looks bored when he goes abroad or gets angry when he’s kept up past his 10pm bedttime, and often gets into trouble with the local press if he strays off script.
McCain, whatever his perceived temperamental shortcomings, will only be a huge improvement over Bush.
As I’ve said, Dean as governor was a different guy from his ’04 candidate stances & as DNC chairman.
Is merely being an improvement over Bush good enough qualifications for you? Well, great. It isn’t for me.
Mark: truth.
DNC Chairman Dean is a lying liar:
bq. “The 9/11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, I might add, said there was no connection between terrorism and Saddam Hussein.”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9883824/page/2/
“Is merely being an improvement over Bush good enough qualifications for you? Well, great. It isn’t for me.”
Nope, and that wasn’t what I said either. But you’re right in suggesting that is a very, very low standard to apply.
And please don’t try to pass off unattributed and un-referenced single word quotes filtered through the popular press (stripping them of all context in the process) as evidence that Dean is politically radical. The MSM love to demonize this guy, and those inclinded to agree (for various reasons) just love to jump onto the scrum for fun it seems.
And even still, the link provides no support for the implicit suggestion that his policies, the relevant issue here, are radical or extreme. His personal style, which is what you seem overly pre-occupied here (and with McCain) is a separate issue.
WR,
– When you segue from a discussion about McCain’s qualities into a paragraph-long rant about Bush’s shortcomings, it indicates that is the standard you’re measuring him against. Otherwise, why bother to bring it up?
– So you consider Howard Dean a moderate, then?
– Selective of you to focus on the second link, sources of which are easily found via Google for those interested, and totally ignore the first, which provides a nonpartisan overview of his positions & evaluates his viewpoint as “Hard-Core Liberal.” You may not agree with their methodology, but their measurements of other politicians hit the mark. For example, Bush is ranked as a “Libertarian-Leaning Conservative”, Kerry as a “Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.” and McCain as a “Moderate Conservative.”
“So you consider Howard Dean a moderate, then?”
Some of his policies are, and some aren’t. I guess how someone will view him, or any politician, comes down to what his positions are for issues that they think are the most important.
Thus, he’s a “radical liberal” if you are a Pro-Iraq war supporter, but a “conservative” if you believe in gun control.
So his average score (what the first link tallies) is of limited value, IMO.
Therefore, on this basis, I will concede that some might correctly view him as “radical”, depending on their political viewpoint.
But it follows logically from this that one cannot simply extrapolate his position on one issue to his views on others, especially those that are dissimilar. In other words, to try to say he is fiscally extremely liberal is incorrect, or that he is socially very conservative.
And that is all I’m talking about WRT Chairman Dean, because it is quite common for him to be generally scorned as a radical liberal by Pro-war folk who want to diminish his positions by purposefully (or not?) mis-labeling him, primarily on the basis of his opposition to the war. And it just ain’t true.
There was a point in his presidential campaign that Dean would have made many of the same comments made by McCain this week. Namely, that despite our disagreements about the justification for the war, it is now important to win that war.
I found that Dean highly appealing and very statesmanlike. And I’ve commented on this blog in the past that I would have considered voting for him had he been the Democratic nominee. But Kerry screwed it up in more ways than one.
And now, Dean’s peddling lies to make his Merlot Democrats loosen their pocket change. And beer drinkers like me don’t have a lot to choose from.
The problem for both parties is that they are in thrall to the money. It doesn’t matter whose. You can make an argument which money they represent but they are in thrall to it.
As a poster here noted the Democrats are too tied to hollywood liberal and sometine loony money. The Republicans to irresponsible transgovenmental corporations> Neither is going to stop without a change in how elections are financed.
What they both share in common is that they use social policy to provide footsoldiers for their corporate causes. Most social policy changes have not occured. Those that have have left a nasty taste in most Americans mouths, e.g. Schiavo.
The result is such that I am becoming prepared to suggest we follow Mao’s dictum and arm ourselves to effect change. I am convince it will happen if there is another terror attack in America. The dogcatcher will be dead if that happens.