Democrats Fighting Over Ethics Reform. Too Funny

Hey folks,

I saw this article in the New York Times yesterday, but I was way too busy to comment. But after reading it again?

According to the NYT

NYT-"Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law"

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all."

This is too funny folks. Truly. No "watch dog." No campaign financing reform. Soros will be happy. No restrictions on earmarks. What happened to "Ethics Reform?"

"Some Democrats say their election is a mandate for more sweeping changes, and many newly elected candidates — citing scandals involving several Republican lawmakers last year — made Congressional ethics a major issue during the campaign. After winning the House on election night, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, promised "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."

Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat tapped by party leaders last year to spearhead ethics proposals, said he was pushing for changes with more teeth. "The dynamic is different now," Mr. Obama said Friday. "We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything."

Right you are Senator. Right you are.

"He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. "We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns," he said."

I love this,

"Sweeping change, however, may be a tough sell within the party. Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was embarrassed by disclosures last week that he had dismissed the leadership proposals with a vulgarity at a private meeting. But Mr. Murtha is hardly the only Democrat who objects to broad changes."

Yes, he called Ethic reforms "Crap."

"Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will oversee any proposal as the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for example, said she was opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. "If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it," she said in an interview. "As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not."

LOL OK

Look folks, this is a clear example of what I’m talking about. The Moderates ran on and got voted in on Ethic reforms. But the Leaders, The LWL, want nothing to do with it. They want the good old fashion APPEARANCE, but no real reform.

The article goes on to say the same thing. This one wants, that one doesn’t. Some say there is no need at all, it was all the Republicans fault. Not theirs. They would NEVER do any such thing. Here is another example,

"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea.

That idea, however, has never gained much traction in Congress, in part because lawmakers balk at the notion of helping challengers who want their jobs. "You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but — I was going to use the term ‘nut’— may be mentally incompetent," Ms. Feinstein said."

It’s Looneys Ms. Feinstein. Looneys. Your right, I’m not all that happy that some of MY tax dollars went to get YOU in office. But hey, if this would allow some maybe lesser known and possibly better candidates get their message out, I’m all for it. If it means that there is a reduction on dependence of campaign donors, why would anyone possibly be against it? {Smile}

This is what I mean when I say that the New Moderate Democrats have a tenacious fight on their hands if they want to make a difference. They have to battle and more importantly BEAT, their own leaders, before they can even think about working with the Republicans. I will repeat again, what happens IN the Democratic party during the next two years, will determine the next President of the United States of America.
Peter