or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sometimes the most simple approach is best. The rest is mearly spin.

There's a difference between simple and simplistic. A better word I could have used would have been superficial...superficial analysis.

Rock on jimmy-boy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Voting for Obama was like handing the car keys to someone who said he knew how to drive (and many people simply believed this stranger) and which direction to drive in (despite having no real driving experience) but has now not only driven in the wrong direction is in real risk of crashing the car.

Not at all. Voting for Obama is feeling much more like voting for someone who said he was going to drive South, after it has been proven that North is the wrong direction, but then he goes and drives a circuitous route that ends up going North anyway.
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

There's a difference between simple and simplistic. A better word I could have used would have been superficial...superficial analysis.

Rock on jimmy-boy.

Ok MJ - boy.

What's superficial is the idea that it's ok for you to drink Pepsi when you like but it's oh so wrong for others to drink Coke when you deem it to be.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not at all. Voting for Obama is feeling much more like voting for someone who said he was going to drive South, after it has been proven that North is the wrong direction, but then he goes and drives a circuitous route that ends up going North anyway.

Possibly a better description. Either way we're still headed for a cliff and Obama's foot is on the accelerator.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Possibly a better description. Either way we're still headed for a cliff and Obama's foot is on the accelerator.

And if that doesn't happen?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not at all. Voting for Obama is feeling much more like voting for someone who said he was going to drive South, after it has been proven that North is the wrong direction, but then he goes and drives a circuitous route that ends up going North anyway.

So just to clarify I know there are many things over which you feel let down by Obama ( not sure if they're the same but as do I ) however given a choice between someone like Obama or Bush who would you prefer if you must pick only one?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So just to clarify I know there are many things over which you feel let down by Obama ( not sure if they're the same but as do I ) however given a choice between someone like Obama or Bush who would you prefer if you must pick only one?

If I must pick I would pick Obama. His broken promises were definitely promising... and I'm hoping there's still a chance he'll come 'round. The problem is that he's just too busy trying to find a compromise on everything, which can only lead to ineffective centrist policy. And his stance on the war is baffling.

Actually, let me expand on that...

The real mistake I think Liberals made in supporting Obama was not supporting Obama over the Republican alternative, but in supporting Obama over Hillary. In hindsight I think she would have done a much better job, though she's still not nearly as Liberal as I would like.
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If I must pick I would pick Obama. His broken promises were definitely promising... and I'm hoping there's still a chance he'll come 'round. The problem is that he's just too busy trying to find a compromise on everything, which can only lead to ineffective centrist policy. And his stance on the war is baffling.

Actually, let me expand on that...

The real mistake I think Liberals made in supporting Obama was not supporting Obama over the Republican alternative, but in supporting Obama over Hillary. In hindsight I think she would have done a much better job, though she's still not nearly as Liberal as I would like.

Quote:
In hindsight I think she would have done a much better job, though she's still not nearly as Liberal as I would like

I've often thought this myself. Before the election I was discussing this with a friend. He seemed to think that Hillary would a be a better choice right now given the situation. Obama is a dreamer ( not that some of his dreams aren't the right direction ). What we need most now is someone who's a doer. Someone who will tackle today's problems and address what needs to be done. I felt that Hillary for many reasons may have been better at that ( there have even been articles about her being Obama's " Bad Cop " given that she doesn't have to present a compliant face ). Also you probably ( sadly ) realize the same smear campaign used on Obama by the Republicans would be even worse with a woman.

Which of course brings me to the subject that Obama should worry less about how he appears being the first Black president or being compliant. He should just make a stand and follow through with it. And if someone doesn't like it that's tough. In many ways he's just being too nice over a lot of issues. I'd love to hear him say : " This is what we're doing and don't vote for me next time if you don't like it! " ( Republicans think he's already that way but they don't know how different things would be if he really was ). But he tries to not ruffle too many feathers and reach across the aisle to the Republicans who don't even see it or realize it. That's why I think we don't see positive action on ending the war in Afganistan. If he went the other way the Republicans would say he's being too soft and blame every terrorist bombing that occurs after that on him.

So he's trying to get every peice of legislation passed while he can instead of picking his priorities and " focusing like a laser beam " on the important issues at hand. Instead he's everywhere. What is it Frodo said in " The Lord Of The Rings "? " Like butter being spread too thinly over a piece of bread ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 58
Excellent, excellent post.
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've often thought this myself. Before the election I was discussing this with a friend. He seemed to think that Hillary would a be a better choice right now given the situation. Obama is a dreamer ( not that some of his dreams aren't the right direction ). What we need most now is someone who's a doer. Someone who will tackle today's problems and address what needs to be done. I felt that Hillary for many reasons may have been better at that ( there have even been articles about her being Obama's " Bad Cop " given that she doesn't have to present a compliant face ). Also you probably ( sadly ) realize the same smear campaign used on Obama by the Republicans would be even worse with a Woman.

Which of course brings me to the subject that Obama should worry less about how he appears being the first Black president or being compliant. He should just make a stand and follow through with it. And if someone doesn't like it that's tough. In many ways he's just being too nice over a lot of issues. I'd love to hear him say : " This is what we're doing and don't vote for me next time if you don't like it! " ( Republicans think he's already that way but they don't know how different things would be if he really was ). But he tries to not ruffle too many feathers and reach across the aisle to the Republicans who don't even see it or realize it. That's why I think we don't see positive action on ending the war in Afganistan. If he went the other way the Republicans would say he's being too soft and blame every terrorist bombing that occurs after that on him.

So he's trying to get every peice of legislation passed while he can instead of picking his priorities and " focusing like a laser beam " on the important issues at hand. Instead he's everywhere. What is it Frodo said in " The Lord Of The Rings "? " Like butter being spread too thinly over a piece of bread ".

To a certain extent, I agree with you. I think he is using the whole "well the minority party would get their pants in a knot" excuse for not being more "gung-ho" in his approach. And I think Bush used that same excuse when he was in power for not tackling issues like securing the border and immigration reform.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing (making excuses for inaction or lack of focus), although it is usually perceived as such by the party who has their guy in office. It makes me grateful for the 2 party system - broken and corrupt as it is. For without it, who knows what radical junk would have been foisted upon us from both sides?

At this point, however, I don't think there is much meaningful difference between the 2 big-box parties. No matter which one has been in power over the past several decades, the result has been the same: bigger government.

(And it was Bilbo who had the bread and butter quote. Fantastic movies, IMO).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

To a certain extent, I agree with you. I think he is using the whole "well the minority party would get their pants in a knot" excuse for not being more "gung-ho" in his approach. And I think Bush used that same excuse when he was in power for not tackling issues like securing the border and immigration reform.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing (making excuses for inaction or lack of focus), although it is usually perceived as such by the party who has their guy in office. It makes me grateful for the 2 party system - broken and corrupt as it is. For without it, who knows what radical junk would have been foisted upon us from both sides?

At this point, however, I don't think there is much meaningful difference between the 2 big-box parties. No matter which one has been in power over the past several decades, the result has been the same: bigger government.

(And it was Bilbo who had the bread and butter quote. Fantastic movies, IMO).

Was it Bilbo? My bad! And yes fantastic movies!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #52 of 58
A Democrat convicted on 11 of 13 ethics violations in Pelosi's most ethical Congress ever? Say it ain't so!

Quote:
The 13 counts stem from several House ethics violations, including improperly using his office to solicit donations for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York, using a residential apartment in Harlem for his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, applauded the decision and called on Rangel to resign.

"All of Mr. Rangel's theatrics aside, the facts were clear: Mr. Rangel violated numerous House rules and federal laws," she said. "Whether these violations were deliberate or inadvertent, the American people deserve to be represented by members of Congress who adhere to the highest ethical standards. Mr. Rangel should resign."

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #53 of 58

No surprise as I reported earlier in Misc. News, but I'll update here. CR who walked out of his hearing citing that he spent $2M on his defense and now doesn't have money for a lawyer, should resign to save himself from further embarrassment.

Charlie Rangel found guilty of 11 ethics violations

Quote:
The eight-lawmaker subcommittee that handled the trial - which reached a unanimous verdict on 10 of the counts - now sends the case to the full ethics committee for the equivalent of sentencing. Potential punishments include a formal reprimand or censure, with each of those punishments needing to be ratified by a vote on the House floor. Expulsion is also a possible remedy but considered highly unlikely.

Rangel was not present for the ruling, following his walk-out from the trial Monday when the panel rejected his request to delay the proceedings because his campaign account was empty and he had no political money left to cover the cost of a legal team.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

No surprise as I reported earlier in Misc. News, but I'll update here. CR who walked out of his hearing citing that he spent $2M on his defense and now doesn't have money for a lawyer, should resign to save himself from further embarrassment.

Charlie Rangel found guilty of 11 ethics violations


This guy is a criminal and should be tossed. He's also incredibly annoying to listen to. I doubt they will actually toss him, but one never knows. He'll probably get fined and censured. Of course, if it slips to the next Congress, the GOP might have enough of a majority to get the 2/3 needed to toss him, assuming they get some Democrats to go along.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 58
Networks Allow a Scant Four Minutes For Rangel Conviction, Devote 120 Minutes to Royal Wedding

Quote:
Tuesday's evening news broadcasts and Wednesday's morning shows allowed a scant four and a half minutes of coverage to the conviction of powerful Democrat Charlie Rangel over ethics charges. In comparison, these same programs devoted 121 minutes to exhaustively examining every aspect of the announcement that Prince William is getting married, a disparity of 30 to one.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 58

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #57 of 58
Waters fires back at ethics panel

Quote:
California Rep. Maxine Waters strongly condemned a decision by the House ethics committee to put off indefinitely a hearing into charges that she violated congressional rules by intervening on behalf of a minority-owned bank with ties to her family.

Without elaborating, the House ethics committee on Friday postponed a long-scheduled Nov. 29 hearing on the California Democrat, one of the most prominent black lawmakers in Congress. The panel's senior Democratic and Republican members said in a joint letter that the session was being put off because of unspecified new evidence that had surfaced in the case.

Investigators for the bipartisan committee in July detailed three charges against Mrs. Waters, alleging that she intervened with federal regulators on behalf of Boston-based OneUnited Bank, in which she and her husband were investors and on whose board Mrs. Waters' husband once served as director.

Hand the case over to the TSA and have her undergo a full body scan and pat down and grope session.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #58 of 58
Bombshell evidence may make Waters an ethics nightmare for Dems

Quote:
POSTED AT 10:12 AM ON NOVEMBER 22, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY\t
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

Apparently, the Charlie Rangel ethics trial was just the warm-up act. The New York Times reported over the weekend that the House Ethics Committee suddenly postponed the trial of Maxine Waters on ethics violation because it found more evidence of direct intervention by her office to benefit the bank in which her husband owned a substantial interest. According to new e-mails uncovered by the committee, her chief of staff directly coordinated with other members of the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of OneUnited:

Quote:
A newly discovered exchange of e-mails led the House ethics committee on Friday to delay its trial of Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat accused of helping steer bailout money to a bank in which her husband owned shares.

The e-mails are between Mikael Moore, Ms. Waters’s chief of staff, and members of the House Financial Services Committee, on which Ms. Waters serves. The e-mails show that Mr. Moore was actively engaged in discussing with committee members details of a bank bailout bill apparently after Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The bailout bill had provisions that ultimately benefited OneUnited, a minority-owned bank in which her husband, Sidney Williams, owned about $350,000 in shares. ..

The subcommittee’s original report found that in early September 2008, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the committee’s chairman, told Ms. Waters not to get involved with any issues involving OneUnited and that Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The case against Ms. Waters hinged largely on a series of e-mails between Mr. Moore and OneUnited, which may suggest that Ms. Waters’s office continued to lobby on behalf of the bank, although Mr. Moore has argued that he was primarily on the receiving end of the messages.

A person directly involved in the investigation said the new e-mails could show that members of her staff continued to work on the bank’s behalf.

“It may directly contradict a bit of Maxine’s story, if not the actual facts, the way she has told it,” said the person, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the trial.

Waters may not be the only Democrat in trouble if this is true. The e-mails used loaded but generic terms like “small bank language,” a code for the known interest Waters had in OneUnited. After all, Waters had already discussed her interest in the bank with Frank, and the nudge would be unmistakable. Everyone on that committee knew that the “small bank” that held the most interest for Waters was the small bank in which her family held so much interest.

That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for “small bank” assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants, got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money. The preferential treatment the bank received — unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money — seems oddly coincidental to Waters’ status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf.

How long will it be before the House takes up this case? One would presume that the Democrats would want to conclude the ethics trial before the end of the lame-duck session in order to have a majority on the House floor for Waters’ eventual punishment, but the news of the e-mails may have them hoping they can get everyone to forget about it forever. That’s not likely to happen, but it may be a little more likely that a future Ethics committee may be looking into the actions of other Financial Services Committee members.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics