The End Of Conservatism?

Refuting Data Flies Fast And Furious

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in | Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Not exactly. Jonathan Alter: Take note.


« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | How Times Have ChangedComments (16) »
The End Of Conservatism? 3 Comments (0 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

From:
Big Lizards Blog: The Missing Earpiece
by Dafydd ab Hugh
November 11, 2006
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/11/the_missing_pie.html

excerpts:

Yesterday, AP rolled out the first of what will undoubtedly be a myriad of Democratic glorifications. This one was titled, humbly enough, Dems Pledge to Sever Ties to Lobbyists. In it, the writer (Larry Margasak) gushes about the spanking new Democratic program (now that clean-government Democrats are in charge) to clean up the cesspool left by the "Republican culture of corruption"

[...]

So what does the program do? The enthusiastic AP tells us (here is where you come in; please read this list and see if you can detect what is the missing piece):

* "Ban gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists;"
* "Double, to two years, the time in which lawmakers and senior officials are barred from lobbying their former offices;"
* "Force lobbyists to disclose more of their activities;"
* "Shut down efforts like the Republican 'K Street Project' - a forced alliance with lobbying firms, named for the Washington street that is home to many lobbying offices;"
* "Require lawmakers to disclose when they are negotiating for private-sector jobs;"
* "Require House-Senate conferences to be open to the public;"
* "And subject government contracts to public disclosure and aggressive competition."

So what piece is missing from this enumeration?

[...]

Where, Mrs. P., in that laundry list of anti-corruption measures, is the ban on earmarks? If earmarks were banned, that would probably take care of most of the corruption... which is, of course, equal opportunity between both parties. After all, nobody is going to bribe a congressman if the congressman cannot funnel public funds into the briber's pocket.

[...]

The Coburn-Obama database covers spending by the federal administration -- the executive branch -- not special spending by Congress itself; although we would be able to search a database of executive-branch expenditures, there would be no link posted to the individual representatives or senators who inserted such payoffs... thus, no way to use this database to expose pork-chomping earmarkers. And the new House policy of exposing earmarks was just a rules change, not a law.

Can both Republicans and Democrats ever condemn irregular benefits (crooked - plain dishonesty ? Ha! Not in our lifetime. I am beginning to believe that regardless of party, the benefits of being elected are utmost (with all unspecified benefits). I am giving up!

Formally known as deagle.

I think this is wishful thinking. The congressional districts have gerrymandered so only few districts are competive. Conservative House members are in safe house districts. Moderates tend to be in competive seats. We lost the House because of Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. I agree with Newt that if the President had fired Runsfeld in October, the Republicans would have kept the Senate and kept a dozen more House seats.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service