I most definitely do not just look at letters after their name nor the letters before. Most of these guys are obviously in it for the power not to help serve their country.

But I mention Delay and Cunningham because neither of these guys have admitted guilt. They continue to profess innocence of anything bad. While Cunningham is in jail, Delay is not. And Delay continues to pop up everyonce in a while. And he still gets fawned over by a guy like Chris Matthews.

I mention these 2 stories because it was a real chance for our govt to put a big crimp in corruption like this. Instead both stories have gone away. I read something several yrs ago in US News and World that they thought the Cunningham story could develop into the biggest corruption story out there. But it obviously got swept under the rug.

But I most certainly don't care about the letters before/after when you are selling out like this. I think the guy Jefferson from LA. should have been thrown in jail and had the key lost for being stupid enough to just put a bunch of cash in his freezer.

Adn I think they should significantly lower the bar on what it takes to forcefully remove someone from office. If I recall correctly, Jefferson was still in Congress for sometime after the cash was found.



>If you really believe that corruption is monopolized by one side of the aisle then you're not paying attention. They are all in the bag for the cash because thats the source of their power.
>
>When looking for corruption, you'd be better off if you stopped looking at the letter after their name (D, R or I) and instead look at the letters in front (Rep, Sen, Pres).
>
>>I think a hugh part of the blame lies with people like Duke Cunningham and Tom Delay hanging out "Govt for Sale" shingles.
>>
>>>Perhaps the misfire had to do with using me as an example. :)
>>>
>>>I consider myself right of center, an economic conservative and a social libertarian (my score on that political test that was posted some time ago concurred). I rarely find myself agreeing with either party, because both sides have pandered so far to the extremes that there's a near impossibility of getting good policy through. I do not save my venom for one particular side. I think they both suck out loud.
>>>
>>>drifting into a rant...
>>>
>>>I hold a great deal of the blame with John McCain and Russ Feingold for that stupid campaign finance law which both parties conspired to pass hoping it would help their side. W signed it so as not to rock the Congressional boat and hoping the Supreme Court would do his job upholding the Constitution and then they let me down. Now we have a system where the politicians must spend more time than ever before fund raising rather than working on the issues at hand. With that, they cannot touch any solution that makes make a significant difference in the status quo or their fund raising drys up. The money is in politics in greater numbers than ever, it's just the sources that have changed. Now the lobbyists and bundling fund raisers are more powerful than ever.
>>>
>>>>Obviously I misfired badly with my message because both you and Dean read it very differently from the way it was meant. My fault, sincerely. Let me try again. I was not using Louis Farrakhan and Ted Kennedy as inspiring figures any right-thinking (correct-thinking? <g>) person should admire. Farrakhan's racism is as extreme as David Duke's, just from the opposite direction. I have zero respect for him. I do have some respect for Kennedy but recognize that he is too far outside the mainstream to get much done.
>>>>
>>>>All I meant was you can't expect anyone who is at all left of center to be very receptive to someone way right of center, any more than you can expect anyone who is at all right of center to be very receptive to someone way left of center. Is that better?
>>>>
>>>>>I cannot speak for Dean but here are my thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have listened to Farrakhan. The problem is he has been saying the same thing for years. He never has a new idea he simply identifies problems, both real and imagined, and assigns blame. If you have an example of a realistic new idea from him, point us towards it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I listened to Ted Kennedy when he spoke about the education policy he helped implement with W. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. With or without proper funding, because it doesn't address the core problems with the system, it simply applies band-aid fixes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Newt Gingrich worked with and against the Clinton administration on numerous projects. NAFTA, welfare reform, balancing the budget, to name a few. It wasn't all partisanship all the time as you seem to indicate. If blatent partisan bickering is the measure, then the current congress wins hands down. Now if you were to compare this one to Delay's, you could make a case.
>>>>>
>>>>>>That does it. We're through, chiquita. Find a new boyfriend! LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But seriously, I do listen to ideas from "the other side." It's just that Newt Gingrich is pretty far down the list of people I am willing to listen to. After years of witnessing his engagement in the most extreme sort of partisan politics, I am skeptical about his rebirth as a level headed consensus builder. My guess is Jake and Dean would be equally unwilling to give Ted Kennedy or Louis Farrakhan a fresh hearing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll listen. Just please don't try to make me a straw man because I don't want to listen to one particular guy, based on his past history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The best way to get around that is stop completely ignoring ideas that come from the other side simply because they don't come from within one's own party - to actually look at and discuss both parties polices and ideas. Or to take an issue and discuss it in a group of both parties. Really throw ideas around. Sometimes the best solution is a blend of two ideas or a compromise. You can start the movement by reading the entire transcript or listening to Newt's speech on video :o)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>IMO you have defined not bipartisanship but partisanship -- the belief that one's beliefs are correct and should not be compromised. The problem arises when different people have different ideas of what is "correct." In American politics this is certainly the case. The two parties have fundamentally different views of government and society. I really don't think it can be said that one is right and one is wrong. Both sides want to, of course -- that's both sides, I am not bashing the party I love to bash <g> -- and we have seen where it gets us. Basically nowhere. To me bipartisanship means sometimes accepting less than what you view as "correct," for the simple reason that you aren't going to get that. Isn't half a loaf better than none?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm not just addressing this post to you Mike. If anyone can help me please chime in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please explain to me how our view of the utopian "bipartisanship" is reached.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To me words like "bipartisanship" and "unity" has very little meaning, because it can't be achieved until someone's idea is proven to be correct. Only when people see that a certain idea works "bipartisan" and "unity" can be achieved based on that idea. It's the proverbial "jumping on the band wagon". We're all on board and UNITED because something works. Prior to this everybody argues, fight and screem about whose idea is best. Then the politicians get togather in the name of unity and bipartisanship and try to negotiate and compromise. The problem with this is, more often then not, the original idea becomes so diluted and water down that they're right back to where they started. Then they all congratulate themselves for being bipartisan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The currently policies has been in effect for over twenty five years with very little result. Infact Newt Gingrich he states that it has had a devestating effect to the poor communities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Was it Einstein who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How do you unite a country with so much diversity of people and ideas? The best answer is by trying soemthing else if the current policy(s) are not working. The only thing that we agree on right now about the current policies to help the inner city probelm is "it ain't working".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't think he was vilified because he had ideas. He was vilified because he was so partisan. He arguably had the most to do with the viciously partisan politics that has afflicted us since the early 1990s. He is also a demagogue IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jake and Tracy indicate he is trying to work bipartisanly and constructively now. Maybe so. People do change. I'll have to see it before I believe it, though, because I remember what he was like when he was in power.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Couldn't agree more. He was a lightning rod in the early nineties and vilified because he actually had ideas. A genuine intellectual who is well-versed in history and is a very big picture thinker. Don't agree with him on everything, but he's sitting right between Krauthammer and P.J.O'Rourke at my fantasy dinner party <s>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I've said the same thing since I took his class in college. I've written his name in on multiple occasions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Newt for Pres! :o)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Newt Gingrich gave a speech on Thursday Mar 27th called "Answering the Obama Challenge".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Video and transcript can be found at this link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://newt.org/MediaCenter/tabid/61/Default.aspx