Neatly Summed Up

Gary Sisco · March-12th-2008, 10:24 AM

"For the first time in history, you have nonmembers able to initiate investigations," said Sarah Dufendach, chief lobbyist for the watchdog group Common Cause. "They're doing oversight. They're the new police."

The final vote, 229 to 182, belied the measure's controversy in the House; 159 Republicans and 23 Democrats opposed it. Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control.

"If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no," implored Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last night.

Scott Dolan · March-12th-2008, 10:30 AM

Beautiful.

Monte Smith · March-12th-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control.

I certainly understand why. It flies in the face of a free parliament. It is the elected representatives who are supposed to have authority over the police. The price for that is from time to time we have corruption, as we have seen over the course of the last several hundred years. But we've always been able to deal with that before. What is the price of having an authority above our elected authority? It is that the highest authority will not be an elected authority. That could be problematic.

Having said that, I have no idea what this legislation is, it's the first I have heard of it. Sounds like a bad idea. Who do we have investigating our Congresspeople? A J. Edgar Hoover? A Ken Starr? An Eliot Spitzer?

Gary Sisco · March-12th-2008, 10:42 AM

Fucking scummers all around.

It's a good thing we have the primary system, now, to keep corruption out of politics.

Gary Sisco · March-12th-2008, 10:43 AM

I don't remember you having a problem with Ken Starr, Monte.

"...from time to time..." When was the last time there wasn't corruption in Congress?

Monte Smith · March-12th-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

"...from time to time..." When was the last time there wasn't corruption in Congress?

From time to time from time immemorial. It is not a new problem nor newly bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I don't remember you having a problem with Ken Starr, Monte.

I did. I have a problem with the criminalization of politics. I didn't like investigations of Reagan, or Bush, or Clinton. I cheered the abolition of the special prosecutor. When politics is put under a legal process, the legal process always has to justify itself with a result and that result is always political.

Gary Sisco · March-12th-2008, 10:50 AM

I had no problem with the investigation into possible perjury or suborned perjury. (On the other hand, all of the people I heard defending Clinton at the time would have fired me out of hand for violation of ethics had I had an intern across my desk at the shelter ....)

Congress has clearly not done much of a job policing itself, nor has any discreet group I can remember (lawyers, doctors, cops, etc).

It's Mr Tiahrt's comment that makes it beautiful, however. And likely correct.

I guess he's not in Kansas anymore.