More evidence that Rep. Nancy Pelosi isn't really interested in "draining the swamp" of Washington corruption:
One of the left's main knocks on President Bush over the years is that he's been too blinded by loyalty and that his administration has suffered from cronyism. Yet here you have the new Speaker of the House, whose drapes haven't even been measured or hung yet, pulling out all the stops to install an ethically-challenged pal for Majority Leader out of blind loyalty and passing over another perfectly competent member (Jane Harman) out of pure pique to turn over the Chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee to a man who was impeached for taking bribes.
I don't think either the national Democrats or the national Republicans have learned the lessons of last week's elections.
Quick, what was the number one issue cited by voters in exit polling? (Hint: it wasn't Iraq).
The number one issue was corruption.
And yet Pelosi is going all out to support Rep. Murtha despite his history and his avowed opposition to earmarking reform, and the Senate Republicans were dumb enough to support Sen. Trent Lott, who has issues on both race issues and pork, for leadership.
It's both maddeningly stupid and frustratingly disgusting.
Yeah, I'm not too happy about the Return of the Creature from Pascagoula. His opponent for Minority Whip was Lamar Alexander, who has a strong record of reform. The fact the Republican senators saw fit to reward Lott, with all his baggage, underscores how out of touch with political reality they are.
Actually, according to Gallup (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=25462), the number one issue is Iraq. Nothing else comes close.
BTW, being lectured about oversight and ethics by a Republican is like being lectured on chastity by a ten-dollar hooker: it's interesting, occasionally amusing, but ultimately offensive.
Michael,
Thanks, but I cited an exit poll for a reason - it's a poll of people that actually voted last week.
And I could care less what you think about lectures from Republicans. I wasn't lecturing you, or anyone else. I was pointing out the absolute idiocy of our elected leaders in DC from both parties.
I find this whole election analysis fascinating. Commentators are claiming that the American people voted for sweeping changes and political reform, but that is far from the truth. This time around the Democratic wing of the Corporate Party won out. The people have bought into this false dichotomy of D's vs. R's, and Left vs. Right. Most Democrats and Republicans are simply proxies for their corporate donors. There are a few exceptions on both sides, but the majority of Congress is corrupt.
I agree that it is "both maddeningly stupid and frustratingly disgusting", but I have yet to see any articles on this site that even allude to the possibility of a less corrupt system. I don't understand how people can be so ardently opposed to the corruption in government and at the same time refuse to advocate for any changes or third party candidates because they are "not viable".
"I agree that it is “both maddeningly stupid and frustratingly disgusting”ÂÂ, but I have yet to see any articles on this site that even allude to the possibility of a less corrupt system."
Sure there is. Eliminate Federal spending on pork, specificially, and cut Federal spending in general drastically. If there's less money to fight over (and try to get a piece of), there will be less corruption.
Unfortunately, neither party's leaders is really interested in eliminating pork or reducing the size of the federal government. They're merely interested in taking care of their friends, and getting their piece of the pie.
"Unfortunately, neither party's leaders is really interested in eliminating pork or reducing the size of the federal government. They're merely interested in taking care of their friends, and getting their piece of the pie."
And yet, we still vote for candidates who support the status quo. Getting the pork out of politics isn't going to happen if we keep sending the same corrupt parties back to Washington and Springfield.
As Illinoians, we should know and understand political corruption, so why are there so many corrupt national politicians? What can be done about?
I am all for third party candidates getting equal access to the ballot. But the argument that there is basically no difference between Dems and Repubs doesn't hold much water after the 2000 election. Nader ran on that very platform and quite possible swung the election for Bush.
Now do you really believe there wouldn't be much difference in the country if Gore had won instead?
What do you mean if Gore had won? Do you mean if the SCOTUS had not appointed Bush president? :)
Yes, I really believe there would still corruption in congress and the statehouse. Even if Nader had won it wouldn't make any difference, we need to vote out ALL of the corrupt politicians.