>>>I don't think it is setting the bar too high to say that if an elected official is offered a bribe - which is a felony - he has some obligation to report it. Or, at least, when running for office he should make it clear to the people voting for him that while he will not accept bribes he will entertain offers without consequence to the offerers.
>>
>>I agree with you 100%. The real question is not whether the bar is too low or too high, but whether it reflects reality. I think all politicians should tell the truth all the time. How many bookies do you figure would give you decent odds on that happening?
>
>Yeah, but telling the truth as in "I have no intention of raising your taxes" or even "I did not have sex with that woman" is on a different level from not reporting a blatant attempt by a foreign agent to bribe a congressman. Makes you wonder how many other people may have approached this guy (the FBI sting didn't approach everybody - so they may have had some idea who might play) that didn't get on tape because the approachers weren't Feds.

Ok, yes. I have to concede the probable truth of that. I don't really know much about him, so I don't know what he might have been up to beforehand that might have put the FBI on his tail - unless they were just targeting randomly.

>I have a pretty good instinct that if they had approached Dan Moynihan, Bobby Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, Orin Hatch, Al Gore (unless speaking Chinese), Rudy, Newt, and maybe even Teddy Kennedy it would have been a very different story. And Bill Clinton would have insisted they go through Hillary's brother, like everybody else.

You might be right. But it's sad to feel sure about such a small handful out of the entire system. Don't forget to add Larry Pressler to your list - I'm pretty sure he'd turn it down (ain't hindsight great). The one that killed me was Pete Williams. Imagine arguing that he didn't really accept a bribe because the titanium stock he accepted turned out to be worthless. You gotta give him an 'A' for chutzpah.

And don't get me wrong; I don't believe things are any different up here north of 49.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>John Murtha's an idiot for a lot of reasons, but he's not entirely wrong on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have read his wikipedia biography ;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>... and au-contre he looks like quiet deacent person (for a politician especially) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am quiet puzzled with the way your evaluation system works, Would you care to explain why is he an idiot ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>TIA
>>>>>>>>>Sergio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Starting with taking money from the the Arabs in Abscam? Or subsequently in his Cindy Sheehan-like irrationality on dealing with the facts on the ground in Iraq?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, he never was convicted of anything, and it seemed as though he wasn't interested in lining his pockets at all. he offered them legitimate business investment information that he thought would bring jobs to his district. So "taking money from the Arabs in Abscam" might also be a little too strong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was my impression as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>After watching the video again I tend to agree that he was not accepting a bribe - though he did try a "bank" shot by suggesting investment in his district (which would benefit him) rather than direct payment to him.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it would have benefited him, but by the reflected benefit to his constituants, which is what politicians are supposed to be all about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess my question is, the day after being approached with a clearly illegal proposition did he contact the FBI to report it? If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>>He's a politician. I'd be willing to bet that in the same situation, a very small percentage of politicians would have informed the FBI - especially if they thought they would lose the perceived benefit to their districts.