inviting me to be one of the original signers of a letter from center-right bloggers to the House Republican leadership.
. I did not. Most of them are people I respect, so it is baffling that they signed it even though one would think
. The letter is silly and meaningless. Here is my response.
You bloggers have a butttload of opinions, and you've gone and expressed another one. I don't agree with you on this:
While you are not naive about lobbying, and you know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members, you are naive to think that the average American gives a rat's ass about the Abramoff scandall--or even understands it. I don't. I don't believe you do either.
You are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege, and you are right. But, what excesses? What priveleges? When a lobbyist gives money to a Congressman, the money actually goes to help him get reelected. He doesn't actually keep the money. Yeah, maybe the occasional junket. But, so what? Surely you can't be serious to think that any sizeable chunk could be taken out of the deficit if, say, more Indian tribes got legalized gaming--which is what the alleged Abramoff payolla was about. Right?
I also hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to certain reforms, including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations, but who in their right mind would call such reforms "sweeping". No, let me take that back. If a Congressman wants to take a junket from Tyson foods to Hedonism II, what business is it of mine? Let him. Have fun Congressman. Blow off some steam. It's really none of my business.
I will agree that changes need to be made to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process, but I wouldn't call such changes "major". Isn't the real culprit here the American electorate and the media? The media for not covering appropriations hearings, and the American public for not caring. In fact, the American people have become so lazy that they find it easy to believe that Congress is full of corruption, easier to blame every one in Congress, and easiest just to tune out. Personally, I won't take the lazy way out. I keep hearing about influence peddling in Congress, but the concrete examples seem much fewer and farther between than the media would like us to believe. The fact that a Congressman takes money or services from a lobbyist is not evidence of corruption or influence peddling.
As for the Republican leadership elections, I really don't give a damn if the candidate is reform oriented or not. My major concern is that the next Majority Leader has a bloodlust for terrorists, will not be shirk from calling fascism fascism when the fascists in question are a group favored by the Left, and who will make sure enough money is spent to win the war on terror. However much money it takes.
After that, I want a Majority Leader who will cut the Federal government's spending by so much that it would make Ronald Reagan blush in shame. Let's start with Social Security, work our way through Medicare, and then start hacking away at the Department of Education. When the Federal government shrinks to its Constitutionally limited functions, there will be no more need for armies of lobbyists in Washington because the teets of largess will be dry. They will have been weened.
Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Keep your transparency. I will gladly let my Congressman get away with just about anything in exchange for protecting me from the bad guys of the world and keeping his grubby paws out of my pockets. Let their paws remain in the pockets of whoever is trying to bribe them. Better their's than mine.
I hope every Congressman who is committed to winning the war on terror and getting the hell out of my life will support a candidate who doesn't give a damn what the New York Times or Chris Matthews thinks about them. And I hope all would-be members of the leadership ignore the self-righteouss members of the new media who have taken to sounding like a CBS News echo chamber.
1
I must confess I really don't see the big deal in this whole Abramoff thing. Should we be shocked or outraged politicians were paid by a lobbyist to influence their decisions? Isn't that was lobbyists do?
I know a lobbyist and he is a very decent man and has told me a great deal of how he tries to advance his client's wishes upon politicians. Abromoff was sleazy, but the act of lobbying is just as democratic and American as Freedom of Speech and apple pie.
Posted by: Chad Evans at January 13, 2006 09:51 PM (+DXHJ)
2
I'm with you on this one, Rusty.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 13, 2006 10:12 PM (rUyw4)
3
Lobbying is just legalized, institutionalized, regulated bribery, and Abramoff is no more or less guilty than anyone else. That being said, I think lobbying must be outlawed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 10:14 PM (0yYS2)
4
You are such a rebel.
Heh. Indeed.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 13, 2006 10:22 PM (Kr6/f)
5
Amen, what Rusty said.
What would be gained by sending lobbying underground? Power and money will always attract each other. You might as well pass a law against gravity.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 13, 2006 10:54 PM (RHG+K)
6
Or we could set an example by sending crooks to jail. But then, getting gravity repealed would be much more realistic. Democracy allows us to give ourselves exactly the government we deserve. Good and hard.
Sometimes I wished I still believed in God, because at least then I could smile thinking of politicians burning in hell for eternity, but I'm afraid the only justice they'll ever know is what we give them, and we don't seem to care enough to do what needs done, i.e. mass hangings of the sons of bitches.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 11:36 PM (0yYS2)
7
Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Keep your transparency. I will gladly let my Congressman get away with just about anything in exchange for protecting me from the bad guys of the world and keeping his grubby paws out of my pockets. Let their paws remain in the pockets of whoever is trying to bribe them. Better their's than mine.
I hope every Congressman who is committed to winning the war on terror and getting the hell out of my life will support a candidate who doesn't give a damn what the New York Times or Chris Matthews thinks about them.
Now THAT I'd sign.
But I ain't signing the other one either.
Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:50 AM (UJ8z1)
8
As well as a petition to make your software remember the blockquote around the second paragraph.
Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:51 AM (UJ8z1)
9
Rusty, I agree more with you on this one. I'm not against reform in the Congress where lobbying and giving favors is concerned, but I'm more concerned with the issues. Shadegg seems to be a pretty good guy and mostly conservative, but I've only just heard of him. As for Abramoff, from what I can tell, he siphoned money into his own pockets. How this make Tom DeLay or anyone else guilty of anything, I really couldn't say. It's just the MSM trying to make DeLay guilty by association, and it makes me madder 'n hell.
I've met DeLay personally, and he was very approachable. I felt at the time that he was a genuinely nice person which is a totally different experience than I have had with other politicians.
Why Republicans in power decided not to defend DeLay is beyond me and it really makes me angry that they did not defend DeLay nor Lott when it was crunch time.
Thanks for your insight.
Posted by: RepJ at January 14, 2006 11:28 AM (kEpN/)
10
Come on. This is a demonstrable and outrageous example of corrupt sleaze and it ought to have consequences. First, Congress is not the CIA. The CIA is supposed to work with sleazy methods and use sleazy people to accomplish national goals. Congress is not. They should have seen Abramoff for what he was and steered clear.
Second, Abramoff's main goals were to fortify and manipulate an enormous government monopoly that is tied to a specific ethnic group. He wanted to give some indian tribes the right to build casinos, and deny that same right to others. Nice libertarian, free-market system you got there.
As for who is being "realistic" here: what do you think the effect next November will be if the Republicans show up at the polls fat, drunk, and unrepentant with wads of lobbyist cash stuffed in their pockets? Whether you're right or not, the limited government and strong national defense guys are vulnerable at the ballot box and they need to publicly hose out the monkey cage.
Posted by: See-Dubya at January 14, 2006 01:01 PM (NZHCc)
11
Misha has a point; I'd rather have a known crook in office than a pretend honest man any day. It seems to have worked out well for everyone who ever voted for the Kennedys...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 09:41 PM (0yYS2)
12
All your Abramoff'ds are belong to trash.
Don't put officially dirty politicians in visible places of power.
Posted by: A Finn at January 15, 2006 08:42 AM (lGolT)
13
Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government.
Yeah, as soon as you find ONE of those folks, let us know, 'kay.
Posted by: bryan at January 15, 2006 09:04 AM (Pa0YX)
14
I have no problem with the bastards going to Hedonism II either, just let them do it on their own dime like the rests of us...err... like other people do.
Posted by: Digger at January 16, 2006 05:05 PM (Vu+DO)
15
"Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government."
The problem with this idea is if the unethical involves taking bribes to advance special interests, there is no way the will be committed to limited government. Simply isn't possible. Yes, the congressmen will be taking the lobbyists money, but they lobbyists are paying Congress to take your money and give it to them, either directly or indirectly.
Posted by: Dave Justus at January 16, 2006 05:07 PM (Ttn36)
16
Rusty, you are right that the Abramoff thing is not a big deal in truth . . . but it is a big deal in the minds of the Dems and their MSM comrades (but I repeat myself).
They will continue to blow on these embers until the fire catches. Then, as usual, it will be up to us blogs and Drudge and FoxNews to set the record straight and hold the MSM's feet to the fire to tell the truth.
My sources in the RNC (yeah, I actually do have sources at the RNC) tell me that they are beginning to hear from their members about the "scandal" and, while, as you said, most people do not actually understand the situation or its ramifications, these members say they are "concerned" about it.
When you start to hear this sort of thing from the rank-and-file members, you can bet that there are more out there who are thinking that way but simply have not spoken up to date. If it has crossed that threshold, it won't be long until the faux scandal becomes perceptually real.
The Dems and the MSM will continue their caterwauling until the public believes it.
(But they'll somehow forget that Harry Reid is one of only five official persons of interest in the current case . . . go figure.)
I signed the petition. I still think that it is something the Reps should do and do immediately, if only from a political strategy point of view.
Getting out in front of a "scandal" is the best way to minimize it.
Posted by: The Artist at January 16, 2006 05:33 PM (FVAyP)
17
While I agree with much of what you say here, especially about how the voters are ultimately responsible through their disinterest, I must question the statement, "My major concern is that the next Majority Leader has a bloodlust for terrorists, will not be shirk from calling fascism fascism when the fascists in question are a group favored by the Left,and who will make sure enough money is spent to win the war on terror."
So, are fascist who are favored by the Right acceptable?
I think fascism of
any stripe should be called fascism, rejected outright, and fought against, regardless of which wing favors it.
Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 06:20 PM (ne61C)
18
Unfortunately, to change the rules you've got to play the game. In playing the game, you "forget" that you want to change the rules.
That said, I have two proposals to reform Congress:
1) Annual salary should be 10 X whatever it is now (~$160,000?) Free Congressional health care for life and a $30,000 annual pension for each term served (3 terms = $90,000.) These benefits become null and void should the Congressperson ever be convicted of any crime.
2) Term limits. No one may serve in a congressional office more than three terms. Congressional staff may not work for congress more than 7 years.
3) Repeal McCain-Feingold and make every campaign contribution publicly known on the web.
(Always underpromise and over deliver)
The idea behind these three proposals is to get seasoned, competent people into the Congress. Let's attract talent by the paycheck and not force Congressmen to fulfill their natural desires by short-changing the country.
Posted by: Allan at January 16, 2006 07:31 PM (Veogk)
19
"Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government."
Well hell, I can lower that by one if the bastards would just accept my application. Geez.
Posted by: Hector Vex at January 16, 2006 09:03 PM (fjqPS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
