Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC Party

Status
Not open for further replies.

sinewave

Avenger
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
0
Points
31
This is good news. He was hurting their image since the Democrats are running their midterm re-election campaigns on the platform of anti-corruption in the face of all the scandals that the Republican party has been involved in in recent months. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see the Republicans do more often instead of trying to deflect blame and protect their corrupt members. *coughDeLaycough*

Check out the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/16/jefferson.caucus/index.html

Cnn.com said:
House suspends Jefferson from powerful committee
Bribery scandal hurts Louisiana Democrat

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted Friday to remove Rep. William Jefferson, who's mired in a federal bribery probe, from his seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

The vote came after the Democratic Caucus voted Thursday night to suspend Jefferson. Democrats were unswayed by Jefferson's argument that the sanction was unfair and complaints from other black lawmakers that he is the victim of a double standard.

The full House approved the removal by unanimous consent.

Although the Democratic caucus had voted for a suspension, House rules do not provide for a temporary removal. However, Democrats said that Jefferson will be able to reclaim his seat on the committee if his legal problems are resolved.

Jefferson's spokeswoman, Melanie Roussel, had said he planned to take his fight to the House floor, but Jefferson did not speak before the vote.

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushed her colleagues to vote to suspend Jefferson -- mired in a federal bribery probe -- after he rebuffed her requests to step down voluntarily from the panel. She also rejected a last-minute offer from Jefferson to step down on the condition that he be replaced by another Louisiana lawmaker.

"It's very sad. But our House Democratic Caucus is determined to uphold a high ethical standard. We said it, and now we are doing it," Pelosi said after the vote. "This isn't about proof in a court of law. It's about an ethical standard ... what is acceptable public behavior for a public servant."

"Passing judgment on your peers is very, very difficult. But it's necessary." (Watch Pelosi discuss the severity of the allegations against Jefferson -- 1:20)

But after the vote, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina, said the suspension was based on "political expediency" rather than House rules, warning that it "could have consequences" for Democrats among black voters.

"We believe our constituents will import their own interpretation into this, and a number of them will import that there's a different standard in our caucus based on race," Watt said, though he added, "None of us are saying that. I'm not saying that."

Jefferson addressed his fellow Democrats near the beginning of Thursday's caucus meeting, which stretched more than three hours. He said he told them his removal from the committee would be unprecedented and unfair because the caucus' disciplinary rules do not provide for suspension of a member who has not been indicted.

"I simply asked the members of the caucus to put themselves in my shoes, to imagine themselves standing where I was standing and to ask whether it would be deemed by them to be fair, " the New Orleans lawmaker told reporters.

"It is not right for the people I represent. ... It would deprive my folks of a chance to have their voices continue to be heard and their problems continue to be addressed."

But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, said that under the rules, the Democrats' steering committee -- which recommended Jefferson's suspension last week -- has the authority to initiate changes in the membership of committees.

The motion to suspend Jefferson, taken by secret ballot behind closed doors, passed by a vote of 99 to 58. However, it failed to capture a majority among the 201 Democrats in the House because at least 44 of them did not vote.

The caucus decision was announced by Clyburn, who is also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He said lawmakers who did not vote were likely caught up in debate on the floor or in other committee meetings.

Clyburn described the tone of the debate as "very, very civil."

"There was no anger," he said. "Nobody relishes this."

After addressing his colleagues, Jefferson left while they debated. He later briefly returned to the room, shortly before the decision was announced, then brushed by the assembled reporters without comment.

The investigation

Jefferson is the subject of a criminal probe into allegations he accepted bribes in return for using his office to facilitate business ventures in Africa. In court documents, prosecutors said $90,000 in cash was found in the freezer of his Washington house when it was searched last summer. (The case against Jefferson)

He has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime. However, a Kentucky businessman and a former Jefferson staffer have both pleaded guilty to corruption charges and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

The allegations against Jefferson present a wrinkle for House Democrats, who, as part of their mid-term election strategy, have been criticizing what they contend are ethical lapses by Republicans. Last month, just days after his Capitol Hill office was searched by the FBI, Pelosi asked Jefferson to step aside from Ways and Means, a powerful committee that oversees tax legislation.

A double standard?

Some CBC members charged Pelosi was applying a double standard in seeking the suspension of Jefferson, who is black, while allowing a white Democrat also under investigation, Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, to keep his seat on the equally powerful Appropriations Committee.

Mollohan, whose personal finances are being investigated after a complaint filed by a conservative group, did step down voluntarily from his assignment on the House Ethics Committee, pending resolution of the probe.

But Pelosi said Thursday evening that there was a "big difference" between the two cases, given the two guilty pleas in the Jefferson case and "very incriminating allegations."

"I told all of my colleagues, anybody with $90,000 in your freezer, you have a problem with this caucus," she said.

On Wednesday, Jefferson sent a letter to Pelosi offering to step down from the committee on two conditions -- that she require any other Democratic lawmaker under investigation by the Justice Department to do the same and that she replace him with Rep. Charles Melancon, who represents an adjacent Louisiana district, in order to protect the interests of his constituents.

According to Jefferson, Pelosi rejected the offer shortly before Thursday's caucus meeting.

Jefferson, 59, is serving his eighth term representing Louisiana's 2nd District, a majority black, solidly Democratic district that takes in much of the city of New Orleans, along with some suburban areas. When he was elected in 1990, Jefferson became the first black congressman from the Pelican State since Reconstruction.

The FBI's search of his office on May 20 set off a tempest between the Justice Department and angry House leaders from both parties, who contend it was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

President Bush later ordered the materials to be held by the solicitor general's office for 45 days, giving the Justice Department and the House time to try to resolve the impasse.
 
I heard this on the radio, but I didn't think it was important enough to post.
 
Ronny Shade said:
I heard this on the radio, but I didn't think it was important enough to post.

it may not be, but i was encouraged by it so i posted it.
 
you're also not a politically apathetic hater who lives in a fantasy world like I am.
 
sinewave said:
This is good news. He was hurting their image since the Democrats are running their midterm re-election campaigns on the platform of anti-corruption in the face of all the scandals that the Republican party has been involved in in recent months. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see the Republicans do more often instead of trying to deflect blame and protect their corrupt members. *coughDeLaycough*

Check out the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/16/jefferson.caucus/index.html

This can't be! Only republicans are corrupt! :eek:
 
lazur said:
This can't be! Only republicans are corrupt! :eek:
*g* well if the democrats continue with that then uhmm yeah only republicans are corrupt. ;) :p
 
lazur said:
This can't be! Only republicans are corrupt! :eek:

Hahaha! If only that were true, my friend. I think they should up the penalties for these greedy a-hole politicians who fall into the corruption pitfalls. Like...having their hands cut off or something. I think it would really reduce the amount of corruption they engage in. :up:

jag
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aHczjrHrbtxo

Democrats See Victory in U.S. House Races, Senate Within Reach

By Albert R. Hunt
Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Charles Rangel and Chairman -- again -- John Dingell. Those titles will soon sound familiar.

Barring an unexpected and big event, Democrats will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November and conceivably the Senate, too. Whether it's a tsunami or just a powerful wave, the political dynamics are moving in that direction, or more accurately, against the Republicans and President George W. Bush.

Democratic insiders, who months ago thought their chances of winning a majority in the House were no better than even, and that the Senate was a lost cause, have become far more optimistic. Now, they say, winning the House is a lock, and the Senate is within reach.

``We have to go back to 1974 (during Watergate) to find such a favorable environment,'' says James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. ``If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party.''

More telling is that the smartest Republican political minds agree. ``The issue matrix and political dynamics are not good for us,'' says Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican. ``Only some big national or international event before the election can change that.''

`People Are Angry'

Bill McInturff, the pre-eminent Republican pollster who sees survey data from all over the country, isn't any more sanguine. ``The national mood is like that of sweep elections,'' he says. ``People are angry about Iraq, about gas prices, about health care.''

Privately, Republican congressional leaders are bracing to lose 20 to 30 House seats -- more than the net 15 gain that Democrats need to take control of that chamber -- and to barely hold on to their Senate majority.

Still, the likely Democratic victory will have minimal significance for the 2008 presidential race and probably for legislation in the next Congress as well. The 1994 Republican landslide was followed by Clinton's re-election two years later; Democratic successes in the 1982 and 1986-off year elections were followed by two embarrassing rejections in the next presidential elections.

``On Nov. 7, people don't have to say they're for Hillary Clinton; all they say is they're angry,'' McInturff says.

Stalemate

Even with a slight Democratic majority, the next Congress is likely to be just as stalemated on big issues such as reducing taxes or overhauling entitlement programs like Social Security. With Bush wielding a veto pen, Democrats aren't going to enact any important domestic initiatives.

The most important difference -- and the reason the White House desperately hopes to avoid a Democratic House -- will be much more aggressive oversight. With tough lawmakers like Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California setting oversight agendas, defense contractors such as Halliburton Co., eavesdroppers at the national security and intelligence agencies and anti-environmentalists at the Interior Department will be in for a rough few years.

To win the six seats necessary for a Senate majority, Democrats need a perfect political storm that even a tsunami may not produce. There is, party strategists believe, a good chance to knock off five Republican incumbents; any other victory would be a real upset, and Republicans are competitive for several Democratic-held Senate seats.

Not Playing Defense

The dynamics are different in the House. On a seat-by-seat analysis, there are three-dozen potentially vulnerable Republicans. Conversely, there are fewer than a handful of endangered Democrats. ``They are not playing much defense,'' laments Republican Congressman Davis.

The Democrats enjoy a couple of other tactical advantages. One is that their Senate and House campaign committees have been remarkably successful in raising money; Republicans will enjoy less of a financial advantage than usual.

Another is that in several states where three or four House seats are closely contested -- New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- a top-of-the-ticket sweep by strong candidates such as Eliot Spitzer, who's running for governor in New York, and Hillary Clinton, who's going for re-election in the Senate, may be decisive.

Moreover, if there is a national tide, the Democrats will win seats that aren't on anyone's radar screens today. ``There are going to be some people in Washington, D.C., next January that no one's ever heard of,'' Carville predicts.

October Surprise?

To be certain, the party's confidence is occasionally tempered by the realities of recent elections. At a private gathering sponsored by Democratic House Leader Pelosi for some of the party's biggest givers in California early this month, there was a palpable sense that Karl Rove and the White House will engineer some ``October surprise.''

And Republicans, with a better get-out-the-vote system, generally tend to close better in American elections. But October surprises usually are the invention of summer nervous nellies; the public mood, not organization, will shape this year's elections.

In the House, the Democrats nevertheless probably will only win about half the seats they did in the 1974 landslide, when they picked up 48, or that the Republicans won in 1994, 52. In part, this is because of a bipartisan redistricting scam that has resulted in many congressional districts being politically non- competitive. Nowhere is this more evident than in the South, which has seen an unusual alliance of Republicans and African- American Democrats redrawing congressional districts.

Dominant in South

The number of Southern black representatives, all Democrats, has jumped to 16 from just two 20 years ago. Yet Republicans now hold an 82-49 overall advantage in these 11 states, reversing the Democrats 73-43 edge of two decades ago.

The upshot is that even on a banner day, Democrats expect to pick up a net of fewer than a half-dozen seats in the South this November.

The gains in the Northeast and Midwest, however, should be easily sufficient to carry the day. That would return political normalcy to America: divided government. The Republican dominance of the White House and Congress for most of the past six years is the most concentrated control by one party in Washington since the days of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
 
I still don't see either of those happening, but I've been wrong before- well except for political races.
 
I honestly think that the make-up of this pathetic Congress will not change. I think the Republicans will keep their slim majority. The Republicans will lose some seats in the Senate and House, but not enough to give the Democrats any form of majority.

What f**king pisses me off though is that the Democrats platform is only "We're not Republicans" a political party with a platform like that doesn't deserve to win a majority. And the incompetence of this Republican-led Congress (the most important thing they have done is change french fries to freedom fries and back to french fries) proves that they don't deserve to win either.
 
^
As much as I want to be optimistic I find myself agreeing with your opinion. But that doesn't mean I'm giving up on the party by any means.
 
hippie_hunter said:
I honestly think that the make-up of this pathetic Congress will not change. I think the Republicans will keep their slim majority. The Republicans will lose some seats in the Senate and House, but not enough to give the Democrats any form of majority.

What f**king pisses me off though is that the Democrats platform is only "We're not Republicans" a political party with a platform like that doesn't deserve to win a majority. And the incompetence of this Republican-led Congress (the most important thing they have done is change french fries to freedom fries and back to french fries) proves that they don't deserve to win either.

well, that's kind of not true, they have different approaches when it comes to the war in Iraq, healthcare and spending, in fact, didn't the differences get all kinds of highlighting in 04? by your reasoning the republicans ran on platform of "we're not clinton" and have been doing so successfully I might add for almost 7 years now.
 
Democrats are differant on allmost all levels! With the country under our leadership we would change this country for the better.
 
Darth Elektra said:
Democrats are differant on allmost all levels! With the country under our leadership we would change this country for the better.

Under our leadership?

I still get a choice in the matter, right?
 
Mr Sparkle said:
well, that's kind of not true, they have different approaches when it comes to the war in Iraq, healthcare and spending, in fact, didn't the differences get all kinds of highlighting in 04? by your reasoning the republicans ran on platform of "we're not clinton" and have been doing so successfully I might add for almost 7 years now.

The Democrats' "plans" are just mere shells to give them something to campaign about besides not being Republicans

The Democrats will act slightly less fiscally ******ed than Bush, not that much of a difference. Analysts have even said that if John Kerry was elected the deficit would continue to rise and he promised to be fiscally responsible.

From what I've heard from the Democrats about Iraq seems to be a rush job that won't work just like the Republicans plan isn't working.

I also don't like government health care on account that it sucks. Trust me on this one, it does :mad:

And no, the Republicans haven't been doing the "We're not Clinton" platform like the Democrats are doing the "We're not Republicans. So vote for us anyways even though we don't know what the hell to do either!" platform. The Republicans have set up a neo-con agenda, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-Israel, Iraq War, etc. It may be a rather crappy agenda, but at least it's something.
 
Darth Elektra said:
Democrats are differant on allmost all levels! With the country under our leadership we would change this country for the better.

The Democrats need a plan first in order to change this country for the better.
 
F**k the two party system. It's about f**king time a new party to rise in power. One that is competent AND has a plan.
 
hippie_hunter said:
F**k the two party system. It's about f**king time a new party to rise in power. One that is competent AND has a plan.

Heil!
 
Slipknot said:
You're Canadian... you keep forgetting that. Tsk, tsk.

I don't get why he just doesn't move to the United States. :confused:
 
hippie_hunter said:
I don't get why he just doesn't move to the United States. :confused:
I know. I've seen him talk about the U.S. saying "we" or "us" and such... he's such a wannabe. He should just move to Maine or Vermont... pretty close to Canada if he likes the Canadian climate that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"