What will the Dems do now that they control Congress?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo



Besides Iraq, Murtha's well to the right of Hoyer.

Chuck Todd's saying that this is basically Kabuki theatre. Pelosi gets to say that she's backing a more conservative Democrat for Leader and that the House isn't run like DeLay's autocracy. The Blue Dogs get to say that they're opposing Pelosi's presumably more liberal candidate. Murtha gets some payback for the boost he gave to Pelosi's leadership bid. And Hoyer still wins. Everyone's happy.

I still wish that there were a third choice who isn't so ethically compromised. Hell, I'd take Rahm Emmanuel in a heartbeat...

first off, pal means pal. Ideology aside, Murtha and Pelosi are personally close, from what i can gather.

Second, as Iraq is potentially much more divisive to Dems now than say, gun control, Id say its not unfair to base ideological judgements on that. third, maybe it all is Kabuki theater - it certainly looks like Hoyer will win. Fourth, despite innuendos, I dont see evidence Hoyer is ethically challenged.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Are you honestly claiming that saying "Cause the Dems need to balance Pelosi, not put her pal in place" wasn't implying that Hoyer would be further right and thus "balance" Pelosi better then Murtha? Come on man! Keep so tenous connection here.

I said it. And not put her pal in place was not only about ideology, but about her close personal relationship with Murtha. As for whos farther "right" (i think closer to the center would be more appropriate here) we all have different estimates of that, based on which issues are more salient.

As ive said elsewhere, the notion that people who are bitterly opposed to DLC approaches to foreign policy, and are darlings of certain parts of the left, are to be considered centrist because of a checklist of issues that arent even on the congressional front burner strikes me as silly, if not disingenuos.

[Ramo]

"A House Democratic project designed to dip into deep K Street wallets entered its second phase of the 2006 cycle Tuesday, as a group of prominent moderate Members enlisted business donors to shell out thousands of dollars to help the party's top-tier candidates. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), along with Reps. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), John Tanner (Tenn.) and Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), met Tuesday afternoon with roughly 50 business-minded Democratic consultants, lobbyists and corporate officers to get them to commit to writing checks to their most worthy party hopefuls next year.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_59/news/11458-1.html?type=pf

Hoyer was bragging about this. After the era of DeLay and Abramoff, this is not how the Majority Leader should behave.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_59/news/11458-1.html?type=pf

Hoyer was bragging about this. After the era of DeLay and Abramoff, this is not how the Majority Leader should behave.

asking lobbyist for donations is NOT illegal or unethical. Thats NOT what Abramoff and Delay got in trouble for. Making lobbyists off limits to legal fundraising WOULD be a good way to try and seal "netroots" control of the party though. Its also a good club to use against DLCers, Clintonistas, etc.

[Dinner]

Yeah, Hoyer doesn't have the ethics to clean up the dirty money. He just wants to get it for himself and his party. Hoyer is part of the problem not the solution.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
asking lobbyist for donations is NOT illegal or unethical. Thats NOT what Abramoff and Delay got in trouble for. Making lobbyists off limits to legal fundraising WOULD be a good way to try and seal "netroots" control of the party though. Its also a good club to use against DLCers, Clintonistas, etc.

They're not talking about making campaign donations illegal. They're talking about making them extremely transparent and all contacts between lobbiests and politicians to be public record no matter how trivial. Combined with an independent oversite authority which has the power to subpena witnesses and punish the guilty this should go a long way to cleaning up corruption.

So I don't see your statement above coming true. We certainly do need someone who isn't talking about continuing the pay for legislation game to be put in a leadership position because that's the only way this sort of corruption can be brought to an end.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They're not talking about making campaign donations illegal. They're talking about making them extremely transparent and all contacts between lobbiests and politicians to be public record no matter how trivial. Combined with an independent oversite authority which has the power to subpena witnesses and punish the guilty this should go a long way to cleaning up corruption.

So I don't see your statement above coming true. We certainly do need someone who isn't talking about continuing the pay for legislation game to be put in a leadership position because that's the only way this sort of corruption can be brought to an end.

Where is Hoyer saying hes opposed to transparency? What Ramo posted was an item showing that Hoyer is playing fairly by the current rules, not that hes obstructing changes in the rules. I also see no evidence that hes offering legislation for pay. If a congressman supports bill X anyway, why shouldnt a group that also supports bill X make a donation to his campaign?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They're not talking about making campaign donations illegal.

No, but they seem to want to exclude someone from a congressional leadership for soliciting legal donations. If Hoyer did anything other than that, its not in Ramos quote.

[Ramo]

Donations from lobbyists. There ought to be *some* gap between businesses asking for legislation and politicians asking businesses for campaign donations. Without that gap, you've got bribery in all but name.

Is the DLC wing of the party so decrepit that they need legalized bribery from corporations to sustain their movement?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well with Unions in the toilet they need to get money somehow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Donations from lobbyists. There ought to be *some* gap between businesses asking for legislation and politicians asking businesses for campaign donations. Without that gap, you've got bribery in all but name.

Is the DLC wing of the party so decrepit that they need legalized bribery from corporations to sustain their movement?

I reread what you posted, and I see nothing about businessess asking for legislation. I see only some politicians asking for donations. I see no bribery, which is already illegal under current law, BTW. So no. DLCers do not need "legalized bribery" whatever that is.

Is the Kossack camp so desperate, that they would smear a good man with innuendo, to block an ideological enemy, or to "defund" (thanks Mr Gingrich) their opponents, in their attempt to increase their power?

[Ramo]

So what, exactly, were the lobbyists doing there?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Well with Unions in the toilet they need to get money somehow.

well they COULD rely on donations solicited over the net from computer programmers feeling financial pressure from outsourcing. Its not like THOSE folks have a self-serving policy agenda, no sir. Think of all the despicable groups who give big money to the Dems, and their horrible policy agendas. Investment banks that want free trade and balanced budgets, silicon valley firms that want to hire immigrant programmers, and to not have their products pirated, and that whole AIPAC-Likud crew (even the AIPAC-Likudniks who arent actually fans of Likud) , opposing whose dire influence is NOT antisemitic, no sirree bob, its just expressing righteous sympathy for third world people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No arguement from me. Unless the intent is to keep all public monies out of politics (yeah right) each party sells themselves to some form of special interest. FACT!

Which goes to the ludicrous assertions of culture of corruption nonsense.

You wanna vote the bums out for fresh new ideas and fresh faces not corrupted, have at it. But pardon my smugness when those voted out are likewise replaced by career politicians (by definition corrupt).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
So what, exactly, were the lobbyists doing there?

What lobbyists do, maintain contacts.

Cmon, what youre implying is that anyone whos ever solicited a donation from ANY lobbyist, under any conditions of transparency. is a legal bribe taker. That would make at least 90% of congressional dems, and certainly the last Dem administration (of which your pal Rahm Emmanuel was a part) legal bribe takers. I very much suspect that goes for Pelosi as well.