The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Liberal blogger Kevin Drum sums up the Abramoff scandal:

One of the underreported stories of the past few years is the evolution of the Republican Party from being the party of capitalism and free enterprise to being merely the party of whichever business interests can help Republicans get reelected. There's a big difference between being pro-market and being pro-business -- in fact, they're often diametrically opposed -- but the difference isn't always obvious until something like the Abramoff affair shines a bright light on it.

I'm not convinced the GOP ever governed as the party of free enterprise, but there were moments, right after the elections of 1980 and 1994, when intelligent men and women believed that the true believers might wield some influence over policy. If you ever wondered who took that role instead, look to Abramoff and the K Street Project.

Comments

[Lost_In_Translation]

This is why they need to add a choice on every ballot that says "None of the Above", purely for statistical purposes.

[panurge]

Unfortunately, "None of the Above" would only be allowed to serve two terms. Then it's back to the grind.

[Eric the .5b]

"The difference isn't always obvious" to people who look askance on both "pro-market" and "pro-business" anyway.

Overall, there's not a damn bit worth of difference on this or most of the other main issues Democrats and Republicans claim to care about. Definitely nothing worth voting for one or the other for.

Unless, of course, Democrats actually campaign on ending the things they claim to find so abhorrent - torture, secret detention, hosing of the Constitution, etc. That would be worth voting for, in the off chance it happens.

(No, even in that sort of crazy optimism, I won't hold my breath and wait for Democrats to try to undo the anti-market work of the Republics over the last few years. It just won't happen.)

[panurge]

Unfortunately, "None of the Above" would only be allowed to serve two terms. Then it's back to the grind.

Oh, except for Congress! 535 seats occupied by Mr. Above. That could actually work...

[theOneState]

How about a "quickpick" option, like in the lotto?

[Akira MacKenzie]

I'm not convinced the GOP ever governed as the party of free enterprise...

But... but Rush Limbaugh SAID they were... [sniff]

[James Feldman]

How about a "quickpick" option, like in the lotto?

OK, now that's fucking HILARIOUS!

[Jennifer]

I was too young to care about politics in 1980, but I had no faith in the outcome of the 1994 elections. What made me suspicious was some article I read about the supposed successes of welfare reform in New Jersey; it had something to do with reducing the benefits given to welfare mothers (which I approve of, by the way), and it said something like "Within six months of implementing these new rules, the birthrate for women on welfare went down X percent."

Considering that a pregnancy lasts nine months, there's no way the lower birthrate could have been a result of the six-month-old rules.

Maybe I was nit-picky. But once I catch you in one bit of dishonesty, I'm going to be suspicious of everything else you say.

[Bonar Law]

I feel toward the Republicans what Dogbert felt toward Dilbert: "I'd mock you, but the challenge is gone."

[Jamie Kelly]

Oh come on, people. Jesus. You act like Republicans are without principle. Why, just last week they took a stand on ... well, it was like this, see ... they, uh ... something about tax rates, er ... hey, when's the last time y'all got laid?

[Nemo Ignotus]

Russia has "Against All" as an option on ballots, which is roughly equivalent to "None of the above." "Against All" wins elections from time to time.

[Timothy]

Saturday.

[Jennifer]

Last night.

[Timothy]

Jennifer: You have the advantage of Jeff living in the same apartment, I commend you and your living in sin ways. Amanda's still in school, damnable school. Damnable living in Texas....

[Ed]

Maybe now is Libertarianism's Great Chance! A Third Choice! Stop laughing!

But seriously guys and gals, since these creeps from both parties are elected by, you know, us, isn't your gripe with the creeps' like-minded constituents? Or is all politics so hopelessly and inherently corrupt that voting no longer matters? In my view the overwhelming concern of each party is to gain and hold onto power by whatever means necessary. Always has been. Are Republicans that much more corrupt than Democrats? I doubt it.

[Eric the .5b]

isn't your gripe with the creeps' like-minded constituents?

To a degree, yes.

[Dave W.]

Time for the rise of Antitrust Libertarian:

We h8 gov't; we h8 big bizness; we luv u.

[John]

Any party in power ultimately turns into the party of business rather than the market. Anytime the government regulates someone, it is necessarily going to benefit someone and usually will do so at the expense of someone else. Generally, the federal government is the friend of big business because federal regulation of an industry more often than not makes it more expensive to operate in that industry which has the effect of raising prices to consumers and creating barriers to market entry because only the large established companies can afford to comply with the regulations. This is why when they were in power the Democrats and leftwing environmentalists were big business? best friends, despite claims to the contrary. The Sierra Club doesn't raise the millions of the dollars that they do just from concerned grandmothers. They get big money from corporate America and corporate America doesn't give that money out of a guilty consciences. It gives it because environmental groups do things for them that help their bottom lines. It is truly a match made in hell.

That aside, before they got into power, the Republicans were the party of the small businessman because they at least claimed to want to reduce government regulation which of course would reverse the effects described above and help smaller firms. Now that they have been in power for a while, they have found that its a lot easier to raise money and stay in power by regulating and spending and tapping into the really big money available from big business which benefits from all of that regulation and spending. Screw principles and the people who put them into power, the Republicans have decided to go for the cash.

The lesson of course is that the big guy with the most money is always going to have the most influence and get from the government what he wants regardless of who is in power. It is a pretty depressing state of things. The best you can hope for is to limit the size and power of the government. Since the people who control the size and power of government are the very ones who benefit from a larger and more powerful government, that isn't much of a hope. In the long term the only thing to do is hope that tax cuts and debt servicing payments involuntarily take away enough money from the spending power of Congress to limit it to some degree and hope that you can get the right judges on the bench who are willing to invalidate unconstitutional uses of Congressional power. Those are the only two ways I can see to even begin to control the size, power and corresponding corruption of government. As long as we have big government we are going to have crooks like Abramoff waiting to help people still from the public till.

[Jeff P.]

That's strange. Jen got laid, but I didn't.
Hmmmmmm.....

I've been pretty equally jaded about both parties since Carter. The Simpsons joke where the Republicans carry signs saying "We're Evil!" while the Dems' signs say "We Can't Govern!" says it all for me.
I, personally, think we should demand the censure or resignation of all Democratic lawmakers for failing to live up to the whole "loyal opposition" thing. When the GOP gives you such easy targets and you STILL can't hit the broad side of a barn, it's time to go.

[PJ]

I wonder just how these deals went down, if they apparently worked only sometimes and DeLay has idiots on staff. No wonder I couldn't get a job on the Hill.

link

[Jennifer]

Jeff, I was trying to make you look Macho. Would you rather I said "the last time the Catholics got a new pope?"

[Kurt]

What made me suspicious was some article I read about the supposed successes of welfare reform in New Jersey; it had something to do with reducing the benefits given to welfare mothers (which I approve of, by the way), and it said something like "Within six months of implementing these new rules, the birthrate for women on welfare went down X percent."

Considering that a pregnancy lasts nine months, there's no way the lower birthrate could have been a result of the six-month-old rules.

Maybe these women followed the news leading up to the law's enactment, and could see the writing on the wall? Maybe when they got pregnant, they moved to Queens? Maybe they had more abortions? Maybe they got jobs, and got off welfare?

[Kurt]

Whoops - second paragraph in my last post should have been in italics.

[Pro Libertate]

Jeff, you need to tell Jennifer that she "is too" hot when taking a shower (I incorporate by reference her strange remark from the showerhead thread). Then maybe you'd have relations more frequently than every papal election. Egad.

Incidentally, remind me to tell my girlfriend to steer clear of Hit & Run. No point in any secrets getting out, good or bad.

[Jennifer]

Kurt--or maybe a statistical anomaly was being touted as progress. Since none of your explanations were offered, and the article didn't even suggest that there was any way the statistic could be taken oddly, I remained suspicious.

And I turned out to be absolutely right in my suspicion--the Republican Revolution was just more of the same.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

But seriously guys and gals, since these creeps from both parties are elected by, you know, us, isn't your gripe with the creeps' like-minded constituents?

Yeah, the swinish masses are the most depressing part of the whole shebang.

[Jennifer]

Maybe a Constitutional amendment mandating strict term limits would help. At least that way corrupt people won't have the time to build up much of a power base. Besides, the whole idea of a professional ruling class stinks in a supposed democracy.

[Pro Libertate]

Actually, the whole reasoning the Court used to reject states imposing term limits was nonsensical. I suspect that 5-4 decision against state term limits would go the other direction today, especially given that the liberal justices might have a different view of things after being under GOP rule for a while.

[Jennifer]

Actually, the whole reasoning the Court used to reject states imposing term limits was nonsensical.

That's why I suggested an amendment. Besides, if term limits were on a state-by-state basis, then states with limits would be at a disadvantage compared to states without them.

[Timothy]

Jennifer: Barring that just vote against the incumbent.

[Stevo Darkly]

That's strange. Jen got laid, but I didn't.

Jeff, I was assuming this meant you were a very considerate and generous lover. Or else you really tend to zone out.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer: Barring that just vote against the incumbent.

There's no guarantee that he'd be any better. Voting for someone just because he's the incumbent is as foolish as voting for someone just because he has an (R) or a (D) after his name.

[John]

Actually, the whole reasoning the Court used to reject states imposing term limits was nonsensical.

Absolutely, the Congressman and Senators in particular represent the States and the States should have a right to limit their terms however they want provided that an election still buys a person two and six years in office respectively. It was one of the worst Court decisions in recent years.

[Pro Libertate]

Yeah, I agree that the "evil state" argument is a good one for imposing term limits at a federal level. Frankly, I've never understood the people who worry that term limits are "undemocratic". I've got news for them: Our system was designed to be quite a bit undemocratic. We don't trust anybody, from president to urban rabble, with too much power. So term limits are just peachy. Along with instant ejection from office ("Sorry, Senator, but you walked near a felon the other day. Please don't let the door hit you when you leave.").

[NoStar]

Jennifer,
Since the welfare changes were known to be coming, it is possible that behaviors were modified before the implimetation of the new rules. Hence, the drop in births just six months.
Still using Occam's razor, your theory of lying politicos is easier to swallow.

But I am reminded of a true story from my past:

In 1980 I got a vasectomy. A friend, who's inlaws managed a rent subsidized apartment complex, wanted to hook me up with a beautiful blond welfare queen who was looking for a larger check via a new baby.

He said, "Bill, you'll be doing your country a favor. In fact it's your patriotic duty to lay her. As a Libertarian, don't you want to fight the welfare system? It might take her 6 months to a year to realize you are shooting blanks. And think of all the fun you'll have in the meantime."

Tempting offer, but I had just met my future first wife (who had a body like Jamie Lee Curtis and a face to match), and I am not adroit enough to handle two women in my life.
------

Jennifer, get Jeff to ream out the water restricter and your hair will rinse out quicker.
You can still save water by showering together.

Jeff, Why didn't you think of this already???

[John]

Pro Libertate,

People have a bad habbit of forgeting that we have a republican system not a parlimentary system. Our system is undemocratic by design and for good reason.

[Stevo Darkly]

NoStar, that's a beautiful story.

[Ed]

Jen sayeth: Maybe a Constitutional amendment mandating strict term limits would help.

Yes, stop me before I vote again.

[Timothy]

Voting for someone just because he's the incumbent is as foolish as voting for someone just because he has an (R) or a (D) after his name.

I suggest voting against the incumbent in all cases because I think an increased turn-over rate would be good. If you can get enough folks to always vote against the guy who's already there, maybe they won't stay long enough to get crusty. I suggest this on the basis that there isn't much difference between one jerk who wants power over you and another, at least within the parameters of the American political system.

[Jennifer]

Jen sayeth: Maybe a Constitutional amendment mandating strict term limits would help.. . .Yes, stop me before I vote again.

You know there's a difference between "number of terms an individual can serve as a member of government" and "number of elections in which an individual citizen may vote," right?

[Jennifer]

Timothy, I meant to say "vote against" rather than "vote for" the incumbent, but otherwise my point is the same--if all you know about someone is He's Not The Incumbent, how is that any different from voting for someone just because he calls himself a Democrat or a Republican?

I seem to recall David Duke once running against an incumbent in Louisiana. He used to be the Grand Kocksukker of the KKK--but at least he's not the incumbent!

[NoStar]

Stevo,
I was playing drums in a band with my friend who was a lead guitarist. He even got his wife to bring down the blond to a gig. She was a looker and not too discriminating as she was obviously willing to take me home.

I have long wrestled with my conscience over had I not just met the woman of my dreams, would my non Christian, Libertarian ethics (this was 17 years before my burning bush conversion to follow Yeshua) have prevented me from initiating a fraud and jumping the blonde's hot body. Or would I have reasoned (or rationalized) that she was attempting to perpetuate a greater fraud which would make my actions tantamount to fucking self defense?

Alas, one of the great philosophical conundrums will go unanswered.

[James Feldman]

Jennifer:

I do think there is something to be said for voting against the incumbent in nearly all cases. First of all, I personally see great reason in voting against what an elected official has done rather than voting for what a neophyte might do. But also, the shorter every term in every office is, the less they will be able to become indentured to whatever private interests who fund them.

The greatest problem that we have in electoral politics, IMHO, is the near-total lack of principled politicians. Compare what many of the Republicans in Congress said about Presidential power during the Clinton impeachment to what they are saying now and you'll get a picture of what I mean. In the end, we will only get rid of the dishonest ones by holding them responsible for their lies.

Plus, wouldn't it be hi-fucking-larious to see all the blue states suddenly become red and vice versa?

[Warren]

All I ever do is vote against candidates.
I've voted in every race on the ballot, in every even-year November election of my adult life (save one). I have an unbroken record of voting against the jackass that got elected.

[Timothy]

Jennifer: Fair point, I'd vote for the incumbent over David Duke.

My presumption is that both parties are, essentially, going to do the same crap, so as long as each candidate is within a standard deviation of his party's mean there isn't going to be that much of a difference, so you might as well vote for the guy who hasn't been there. This is going to run into problems sometimes, as you've pointed out, but I don't think it's a bad place to start.

[Eric the .5b]

Jennifer, if voting against incumbents simply for being incumbents is foolish, why wouldn't term limits be equally foolish?

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, if voting against incumbents simply for being incumbents is foolish, why wouldn't term limits be equally foolish?

Eric, I mentioned before that I think it is a problem to have what is basically a Professional Ruling Class (especially one which is not required to follow the rules they set for the rest of us).

Besides, power corrupts, and the longer people stay in office the more powerful they become.

[mk]

William Graham Sumner said similar things about the danger of influence peddling to the free-market at the turn of the last century.

[mk]

Note that WGS also thought, over a hundred years ago, that the situation was pretty much hopeless.

[Captain Awesome]

I always had small beef with the strict term limits idea. It doesn't provide any means for the populus to reward a good candidate who's already served his term. I like the idea of letting people serve as many terms as they want, but never allowing the same person to serve consecutive ones.

[Jennifer]

I like the idea of letting people serve as many terms as they want, but never allowing the same person to serve consecutive ones.

Works for me.

[joe]

Personally, I think that when a set of politicians declares the pursuit of profit to be the noblest of goals, you shouldn't be surprised when they turn out to be greedy pigs.

[Lowdog]

Someone's trolling.

[James]

John has the right of it. Every government in history has protected the wealthy and powerful against any competition. Who really thinks the USSR was a "classless society?" They don't exist.

The bottom line is that every weapon you put in the government's hands will be used to protect the wealthy and powerful, to make them wealthier and more powerful. So government should be limited. All the anti-corporate progressives who argue that government can be a tool against oppressive capital, "if we could only get the right guys in office," is fooling himself. Government will always be a tool in the hands of the rich and well-connected. Ten thousand years of human history confirms that view.

[NoStar]

James,
I wonder if Joe recognizes his precious city planners and zoning commisions fulfill that same function "to protect the wealthy and powerful, to make them wealthier and more powerful."

But I'm sure that when Joe does his job, he doesn't favor one class over another.

[James Feldman]

James (wow, that feels like I'm about to argue with myself):

While I agree with you to a certain extent, I find your historical argument to be flawed. First of all, the history of human societies is both highly mutable, and somewhat progressive. Anti-corporate progressives have had a history of many successes through government in this country, from child labor laws to overtime pay and to modern sexual harrassment laws.

I'm not on Joe's side in this particular debate, but your argument doesn't have the historical basis you claim.

[joe]

OK, Lowdog, maybe a little. But hear me out.

There are two fundamental principles behind Jack Abramoff's actions: that corrupting the government is no big deal, and that it's good to make lots of money.

If you accept simply as a given that government is irrefutably corrupt, why should the direction of the corruption matter? Money going to every retired worker in the country, money going to your buddies, what's the difference, right? The government's the problem, right, so what's the big deal in exchanging one problem for another?

This is not to say that Abramoff's actions were in keeping with the ideals of anti-government conservatives. Nor was the gulag in keeping with the ideals of Marx and Engels. But in both cases, ideas had consequences. If "bourgeois morality" is hypocritical and self-serving, why act with any morality? If lobbying is just squabbling among greedheads over ill-gotten gains, why would Jack's squabbling be any different than, say, patients at hospitals in very poor areas?

[cliff]

Maybe a Constitutional amendment mandating strict term limits would help. At least that way corrupt people won't have the time to build up much of a power base. Besides, the whole idea of a professional ruling class stinks in a supposed democracy.

Jennifer, I would think that a bunch of freshman congress people would be a real treat for all of the seasoned lobbyists that are on career status and just waiting to advise their naive little minds to the ways doing business in Congress. You scratch my back...

[Akira MacKenzie]

"hey, when's the last time y'all got laid?"

Eight years ago, and it only qualified as "sex" in the Bill Clinton sense of the word.

[Stretch]

Term limits aren't going to do anything. Except for the smallest of offices, the politician is already corrupt by the time he even begins to think about running. He brings his own special interests with him. Just look at Mayor Street of Philly, for example. It's not like the terrible power of mayorhood corrupted him over time. No, he was wheeling and dealing from day 1, and probably for several years before that.

And who sets the limits? Should it be two terms because that's what we're comfortable with? Why not one? Or three? And how about serving non-consecutive terms? Of all the things that need to be changed about our electoral process, term limits is at the very bottom of that list.

[Eric the .5b]

"Jennifer, if voting against incumbents simply for being incumbents is foolish, why wouldn't term limits be equally foolish?"

Eric, I mentioned before that I think it is a problem to have what is basically a Professional Ruling Class (especially one which is not required to follow the rules they set for the rest of us).

Which would be the motivation to choose to always vote against incumbents or to force that vote on everyone through term limits. But why is the former foolish and the latter reasonable?

[Pro Libertate]

Because we voters don't have the sense to vote out people who are obviously jaded, corrupt, or otherwise unsuited for office. Term limits are a good idea and serve (where in place) to limit some of the harm from these "lifetime appointments" we're seeing. Safeguards against tyranny aren't always purely democratic. If all we cared about was majority rule, we could toss the Constitution and just let Congress rule by fiat.

As for the idea that lobbyists get more powerful with term limits, well, I don't see even a little bit of independence developing from long-term incumbents. In fact, I'd say the reverse is true. At least a newbie might still be starry-eyed enough to avoid being completely controlled by lobbyists. Besides, why are lobbyists worse than politicians? The latter are the ones who seized so much power that they've made the former so danged necessary.