|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 134 of 186:
| 
Jan 26 18:56 UTC 2006 |
I think that KLG is trying to demonstrate that Republican corruption is OK
because Democrats do it too. That's similar to the Republican excuse for
being so enthusiastic about torturing "enemy combatants": the "enemy" does
it too.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 135 of 186:
|
Jan 26 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Corruption is an inevitable result of one-party rule, no matter whether
the one party is Republican, Democrat, Communist, or whatever. If the
senator from Nevada has done things which are illegal, I'd favor
prosecuting him the same as any other senator of any party who breaks
the law.
|
klg
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:27 UTC 2006 |
No. It was just a rejoinder to my bud RW, who way back in 76(?) gave
us his insightful analysis as to how the Democrats are poised later
this year to reap the benefits of the anti-corruption congressional
vote.
Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that
corruption only results from "one-party rule," whatever in the world
that's supposed to mean in the U.S.?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:36 UTC 2006 |
The current most widespread corruption in our government lies with the "one
party" in power, the Republicans.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:48 UTC 2006 |
There are some regions of the US where there is, or has been in the
past, what effectively amounts to one-party rule because there is only
one viable party. The old Democratic establishment in Chicago would be
one historical example.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Jan 26 21:48 UTC 2006 |
re #136:
> Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that
> corruption only results from "one-party rule,"
In my opinion the best way to start would be by getting rid of the
word "only", which was your own addition to his statement and which
changes the meaning of what he said substantially.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Jan 26 22:36 UTC 2006 |
lol!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Jan 26 23:15 UTC 2006 |
Re #139: it's OK, I'm willing to let kludge have his strawmen to knock down.
I figure it keeps him out of trouble.
|
klg
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Jan 27 02:29 UTC 2006 |
So, MM would say that corruption results only from one party rule and
more than one party rule??? Hard to argue with that one!
ery Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very
Interestin
Heard reported yesterday:
Over the past 30 years, the House Ethics Committee has conducted 70
investigations - 55 on Democrats and 15 on Republicans.
resting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting --
Ver
|
fitz
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Jan 27 13:25 UTC 2006 |
I was suspicious of the numbers in #142 so I spent about 30 minutes
gathering my own statistics and I would say that klg's source and I
substantially agree.
From the _Biographical Directory of the United States Congress_ and the House
Committe on Standards and Conduct, I find
democrats 54
Republicans 14
This number is from 1976 to the present. The number reflects allegations of
individuals only: a few matters brought before the committe were broad
investigations which might or might not have involved members. Duplicate
names were stricken: Gingrich almost made the Democrats as good as angels
all by himself.
I knew that the rhetorical blather about the Republican culture of sleaze
was not a claim that would look good under scrutiny. [That was Sen.
Clinton on MLK Day, wasn't it?]
|
marcvh
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Jan 27 15:40 UTC 2006 |
It would be pretty easy to come up with bazillions of possible expalantions
for these numbers other than the obvious conclusion that kludge wants us to
jump to, yup.
|
klg
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Jan 27 17:19 UTC 2006 |
Good job. Thank you. I caught the report in passing while in the car,
so didn't catch the details. I did spend some time trying to verify
it, but didn't find anything.
As for VH, the obvious explanation is frequently the correct one
(except if you're a liberal, I suppose).
|
marcvh
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Jan 27 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Yup, the obvious explanation of a randomly chosen fact is indeed
frequently the correct one. Conversely, the obvious explanation of
a half-truthful talking point spewed by a partisan hack is rarely
the correct one.
|
klg
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Jan 27 19:59 UTC 2006 |
VH: "The gift that keeps on giving."
|
happyboy
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Jan 27 20:03 UTC 2006 |
you're gonna get outsourced.
|
tod
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Jan 27 20:11 UTC 2006 |
Welcome to MoTown
|
happyboy
|
|
response 150 of 186:
|
Jan 27 22:00 UTC 2006 |
"GM-- We're NUMBER TWO!"
|
tod
|
|
response 151 of 186:
|
Jan 28 01:10 UTC 2006 |
"My EMPIRE is CRUMBLING!!"
|
johnnie
|
|
response 152 of 186:
|
Jan 28 04:30 UTC 2006 |
Going back about 20 years (at which point I got tired of Googling), I'm
seeing about 30 investigations of Dems and about 25 of Republicans. A
more telling point, however, is that after Newt got nailed several
times, the committee banned complaints by outside groups, and since that
point leaders of both parties have "strongly discouraged" their members
from filing complaints against each other. The committee has been
completely dead since last spring, with Democrats refusing to
participate in protest of what they see as Republican attempts to neuter
what's left of the committee.
|
fitz
|
|
response 153 of 186:
|
Jan 28 11:00 UTC 2006 |
I forgot to mentioni one additional limitation to the online report from the
House Committee on Standards and Conduct: It is only updated after the end
of each Session. Hence there might be a few cases that were disposed of and
not in the cummulative report yet.
Johnny's numbers in #152 were what I would have expected, but I found quite
a different number. Did you exclude repeat offenders?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 154 of 186:
|
Jan 30 21:30 UTC 2006 |
No. There were multiples of Gingrich, a few of DeLay, a couple/few of a
Dem from Ohio, maybe one or two others. I wonder, too, if the list
would include members who resigned in disgrace or lost an election
before an investigation got under way (and I have no idea how many that
would be).
|
fitz
|
|
response 155 of 186:
|
Jan 31 12:40 UTC 2006 |
OK. Then our totals would be different because of different criteria. It
should be noted that swelling the Republican naughtiness by counting
Gingrich's separate investigations would sometimes increase the total of
democrats who had a single investigation of multiple allegations.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 156 of 186:
|
Jan 31 13:48 UTC 2006 |
Certainly. We could break the numbers down a hundred different ways.
The only firm-ish conclusion we can probably all agree on is that
Congress doesn't do a very good job of policing itself.
|
crimson
|
|
response 157 of 186:
|
Jan 31 15:37 UTC 2006 |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
twenex
|
|
response 158 of 186:
|
Jan 31 15:45 UTC 2006 |
Indeed.
|