Scandal-hit Jefferson wins Louisiana runoff

[Ramo]

Given some of Pelosi's picks to head committees so far what body of the House can we expect Jefferson to chair now?

Pelosi took away his Appropriations Subcommittee after the scandal broke. There's no reason to think that he's going to get it back.

Apparantly Jefferson won by going hard-right on social issues (since Carter is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, etc), he had the strong support of a Sherriff who wouldn't let fleeing residents come into his Parish (because Carter called him on it), and Carter is a ****ty campaigner.

She was going to select someone impeached for bribery

There's no real reason to say that. By all indications, she was quietly engaging in diplomacy between the CBC and the Blue Dogs.

[Gatekeeper]

Whites, who overwhelmingly voted for Carter in the primary and have been her most enthusiastic financial backers, believed a Jefferson win would confirm this city's image as corrupt and untrustworthy as it asks the nation to fund its recovery from Katrina.

Well, there's that and the $1 billion that folks from New Orleans area ripped off from FEMA and, by extension, taxpayers across the entire nation.

My sympathy for New Orleans has dwindled greatly. It seems that, even in the midst of great tragedy and disaster, more than a few "good" folks felt that the need for personal gain was more important than anything else.

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

Ah, the power of incumbency.

As for the Democrats, even with Jefferson, in are by default better than the repugs in terms of corruption. 1 under investigation(Jefferson) vs. 2 convicted (Cunningham, Ney) and 1 under investigation (DeLay).

Simple arithmetic.

[Kuciwalker]

"Less corrupt than the Republicans" is a far cry from "the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history."

[DaShi]

Originally posted by snoopy369


That's because they are guilty of real estate fraud (not enough tinfoil to cover murder, sorry) ... You can be guilty, have a lot of money, and avoid being actually found guilty. I know, shocking, isn't it?

No, they aren't. They were found innocent of all charges. In fact, the first investigation found them innocent, but Republicans couldn't take that and pushed for more investigations that wasted a lot of time and money only to find that they were still innocent. The fact that people still believe that they are guilty at this point, just goes to show my point and how effective the unrelenting Republican smear campaign was against them.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DaShi


No, they aren't. They were found innocent of all charges. In fact, the first investigation found them innocent, but Republicans couldn't take that and pushed for more investigations that wasted a lot of time and money only to find that they were still innocent. The fact that people still believe that they are guilty at this point, just goes to show my point and how effective the unrelenting Republican smear campaign was against them.

a) They weren't charged with anything
b) An investigation that turns up nothing does not prove innocence merely lack of a case worthy of prosecution
c) Being 'found innocent' would require a trial. As no trial happened they could not be found innocent. They were innocent until proven guilty. Lack of an indictment against them means they were never charged and means they likewise were never tried and simply remain in a state of being innocent (no findings there at all). Investigation is not the same as criminal proceedings.
d) All this being said I abhor the politcal opportunism the repugs displayed inthe Clinton years, but lets not say they were found nnocent when they were never even tried.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"Less corrupt than the Republicans" is a far cry from "the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history."

Well to be fair it looks to be at least in the top 5% of all democratic congresses wrt honest, open, and ethical congresses. Granted that still is an extremely low bar but still...