Do You Think It's Ok To Bribe Congressmembers To Get Their Votes?

[Murf76]

There's nothing complicated about any of this. A proposed bill is either a good idea and can stand on its own... or not. It's that simple.

When a vote is "bought", what's essentially happening is that a legislator is voting for a bill that s/he wouldn't have voted on otherwise, a bill that couldn't stand on its own merit. If it takes a "bribe" to get the vote, it's not a good bill.

This is a betrayal of the trust bestowed upon our representatives. We elect them and trust them to only vote in the affirmative for the best ideas. When they make these deals, they're selling out for something less.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Bribery = corruption, regardless of political party.

This administration and congress is deplorable in it's efforts to shove this shit down our throats. Everyday another bribe is brought to light . . and they stand there and say 'no, it's not a bribe'. Do they really think the American people are so stupid as to believe their shit?

White House officials say Obama offers no overt promises or favors to House Democrats who agree to back the health care proposals. But suspicions of mutual back-scratching are almost inevitable in the wake of quiet Oval Office meetings, which White House officials have refused to divulge to the media.

Freshman Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla., repeatedly failed to obtain an audience with Obama to discuss her concerns about cuts at NASA, a crucial agency in her district. But she got invited to the Oval Office last week when Obama needed her vote on health care. She has declined numerous interview requests from reporters ever since.

On Thursday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said he agreed to vote for the health care package on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would soon move a major immigration bill. About an hour later, Senate Democrats unveiled an immigration bill, and Obama issued a statement praising it.

Democrats use tactics they once reviled :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Steve Huntley

What happened to Obama's campaign promise that something as massive as health care legislation shouldn't be passed by a one vote margin cause that sure seems to be his goal now. Oh wait, they were 'just words'.

 

[antagon]

If George Bush was doing this would he get the same pass Obama is currently getting?

Bush did it all the time. All those closed door session where he or Cheney or Rove twisted arms to get votes.

I don't recall anyone calling for impeachment, especially you right wing loons.

boohoohoo

I was waiting for the "but BOOOSSSSHHHHH" whining and right on cue here it is.
No, sorry. BUsh never did this. Yes, he lobbied for votes one way or another. That is politics. Every president does that.
But every president does not promise political appointments for retiring COngressmen in exchange for voting for his pet project.
That is bribery.
That is unacceptable.
Yes, if Bush had done that the Libs would be screaming. Hell, if the GOP had done half of what the Dums are doing now there would be serious moves at impeachment and ethics investigations.

because youre a partisan hackjob, rabbi, and you routinely massage bush's nuts, of course you are totally oblivious to the bipartisan trend toward corruptibility.

how do you reconcile your position that bush wont offer political appointments for influence with bob nardelli's wham-bam-thankyou-ma'am? he was a blatant supporter of the bush administration, was gifted an appointment to some cabinet council of bush's. jumped into the big chair at chrysler, and secured a $4,000,000,000 GRANT from the bush's government.

he's retired like bush, now. yachts and pina coladas.

 

[antagon]

We are not children, no one has my permission to 'act in my best interests', they are our REPRESENTATIVES, not our Parents.

notwithstanding how you feel, thats what your votes are. permission. long before your days we've built a great nation on that basis. isnt it childish, in fact, to be pedantic/semantic over the name of the job, rather than to accept the constitutional format the job applies to? they are also called congressmen, senators and legislators, crooks, critters and assholes. what's in a name?

 

[Zoom-boing]

We are not children, no one has my permission to 'act in my best interests', they are our REPRESENTATIVES, not our Parents.

notwithstanding how you feel, thats what your votes are. permission. long before your days we've built a great nation on that basis. isnt it childish, in fact, to be pedantic/semantic over the name of the job, rather than to accept the constitutional format the job applies to? they are also called congressmen, senators and legislators, crooks, critters and assholes. what's in a name?

So . . . they're not suppose to represent the majorities wishes but rather, do what they think is best for us? Bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush did it all the time. All those closed door session where he or Cheney or Rove twisted arms to get votes.

I don't recall anyone calling for impeachment, especially you right wing loons.

boohoohoo

I was waiting for the "but BOOOSSSSHHHHH" whining and right on cue here it is.
No, sorry. BUsh never did this. Yes, he lobbied for votes one way or another. That is politics. Every president does that.
But every president does not promise political appointments for retiring COngressmen in exchange for voting for his pet project.
That is bribery.
That is unacceptable.
Yes, if Bush had done that the Libs would be screaming. Hell, if the GOP had done half of what the Dums are doing now there would be serious moves at impeachment and ethics investigations.

because youre a partisan hackjob, rabbi, and you routinely massage bush's nuts, of course you are totally oblivious to the bipartisan trend toward corruptibility.

how do you reconcile your position that bush wont offer political appointments for influence with bob nardelli's wham-bam-thankyou-ma'am? he was a blatant supporter of the bush administration, was gifted an appointment to some cabinet council of bush's. jumped into the big chair at chrysler, and secured a $4,000,000,000 GRANT from the bush's government.

he's retired like bush, now. yachts and pina coladas.

Bob Nardelli was a Congressman?? News to me.
You are so tired with your moral equivalence it makes me want to puke. Here is Obama engaging in blatant bribery which is unpredecented, except by Warren Harding, and all you can do is point a crooked finger at something completely different and declare they are exactly the same.
EIther you have no power to detect differences whatsoever, so a radish is basically the same as a tractor, or else your willful hackery is making a liar out of you.

 

[Ravi]

We are not children, no one has my permission to 'act in my best interests', they are our REPRESENTATIVES, not our Parents.

notwithstanding how you feel, thats what your votes are. permission. long before your days we've built a great nation on that basis. isnt it childish, in fact, to be pedantic/semantic over the name of the job, rather than to accept the constitutional format the job applies to? they are also called congressmen, senators and legislators, crooks, critters and assholes. what's in a name?

So . . . they're not suppose to represent the majorities wishes but rather, do what they think is best for us? Bullshit.

That is our form of government, and it has been since the beginning.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I don't see this going away (the bacteria as a whole) until Lobbying is abolished, but then again when Lobbying is abolished we in essence have a conflict of interest with the first Amendment. I'm not sure there's a good fix.

Turn these people back home 90 % of the time , so they can be lobbied by there actual constituents .
Congress was supposed to be a part time gig ,not a full-time life time career .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

notwithstanding how you feel, thats what your votes are. permission. long before your days we've built a great nation on that basis. isnt it childish, in fact, to be pedantic/semantic over the name of the job, rather than to accept the constitutional format the job applies to? they are also called congressmen, senators and legislators, crooks, critters and assholes. what's in a name?

So . . . they're not suppose to represent the majorities wishes but rather, do what they think is best for us? Bullshit.

That is our form of government, and it has been since the beginning.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were to live in a "constitutional republic".

 

[Ravi]

So . . . they're not suppose to represent the majorities wishes but rather, do what they think is best for us? Bullshit.

That is our form of government, and it has been since the beginning.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were to live in a "constitutional republic".

Tell it to James Madison

The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[5] In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[6],

 

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court has as much as said it's OK. They said money is speech so when someone delivers a bag of money to an elected official, they're just talking.

Why then is rod blagojevich on trial?

Oh...but that's different.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A bribe is criminal ... isn't it?

Sometimes it seems.

You can't bribe a member of congress it you're a private citizen...but if you're the President it seems it's OK.

Money is free speech, I keep hearing.

 

[California Girl]

We are not children, no one has my permission to 'act in my best interests', they are our REPRESENTATIVES, not our Parents.

notwithstanding how you feel, thats what your votes are. permission. long before your days we've built a great nation on that basis. isnt it childish, in fact, to be pedantic/semantic over the name of the job, rather than to accept the constitutional format the job applies to? they are also called congressmen, senators and legislators, crooks, critters and assholes. what's in a name?

Which is why I vote neither Dem or GOP. Neither have my permission to represent me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We keep hearing about all of the promises that Obama is making to all of these Democrats to change their votes. Doesn't this look a bit unseemly? Who is really being served here anyway; The politicians or the people that put them in their jobs?

How many times in the last two weeks has Obama committed an impeachable offense? If George Bush was doing this would he get the same pass Obama is currently getting?

You can't bribe a judge, lawyer, or a jurist....so why is it OK to bribe a politician? Somebody answer this question for me because I'm not getting it.

In all respects the President is breaking the law because he's offering gifts for their votes, even if it's not a personal bribe...it does benefit the receiver directly in his or her own state. This should be against the law...and only illustrates the corruption in Washington....doesn't it?????

Could you list all the promises the president himself has specifically made, and to whom specifically,

then we can evaluate them on a case by case basis.

 

[mudwhistle]

If George Bush was doing this would he get the same pass Obama is currently getting?

Bush did it all the time. All those closed door session where he or Cheney or Rove twisted arms to get votes.

I don't recall anyone calling for impeachment, especially you right wing loons.

boohoohoo

How bout providing some links to these terrible imaginary occurrences. I also seem to remember them talking about impeachment over the war all the time. You must have forgotten.

The usual defense is "But they did it toooooooooo!!!" But you never seem to provide the proof of this accusation.

Bush talked to members of congress hoping to convince them to vote his way..but he never was on record offering to bribe anyone or change the bill to accommodate them. That wasn't his job anyway. He never offered them a chairmanship. He couldn't . But that is what Obama is doing. Bush never gave the members' state a cash inducement. Never.

That's the beauty of this. Obama gives some crook what he wants....then tells everyone what it is....the howls of outrage ensue and he pulls it from the bill at the last moment. What a racket.

This is all just a perfect example of selling your vote for monetary inducements.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No we are not a direct democracy but our representatives are to represent us, not to act as they see fit.

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In politics, representation describes how political power is alienated from most of the members of a group and vested, for a certain time period, in the hands of a small subset of the members. Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected officials nominally speak for their constituents in the legislature.

Representation (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[amrchaos]

We keep hearing about all of the promises that Obama is making to all of these Democrats to change their votes. Doesn't this look a bit unseemly? Who is really being served here anyway; The politicians or the people that put them in their jobs?

How many times in the last two weeks has Obama committed an impeachable offense? If George Bush was doing this would he get the same pass Obama is currently getting?

You can't bribe a judge, lawyer, or a jurist....so why is it OK to bribe a politician? Somebody answer this question for me because I'm not getting it.

In all respects the President is breaking the law because he's offering gifts for their votes, even if it's not a personal bribe...it does benefit the receiver directly in his or her own state. This should be against the law...and only illustrates the corruption in Washington....doesn't it?????

I thought we have laws against bribery. So are you trying to find out if we should make it legal or not? I am against bribery, but if you are talking about trading for votes or "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" methods of parlimentarian systems, then you are way off base.

Call it what it is and do not use propagandist motivated words to describe it.

Keep in mind, if this is called bribery, Ronald Reagan "Bribed" many Democrats to pass much of his policy agendas back in the 80's. Or, using my way of saying it, Reagan made promises to Democrats for their votes on the bills he wanted.

 

[VaYank5150]

We keep hearing about all of the promises that Obama is making to all of these Democrats to change their votes. Doesn't this look a bit unseemly? Who is really being served here anyway; The politicians or the people that put them in their jobs?

How many times in the last two weeks has Obama committed an impeachable offense? If George Bush was doing this would he get the same pass Obama is currently getting?

You can't bribe a judge, lawyer, or a jurist....so why is it OK to bribe a politician? Somebody answer this question for me because I'm not getting it.

In all respects the President is breaking the law because he's offering gifts for their votes, even if it's not a personal bribe...it does benefit the receiver directly in his or her own state. This should be against the law...and only illustrates the corruption in Washington....doesn't it?????

Could you list all the promises the president himself has specifically made, and to whom specifically,

then we can evaluate them on a case by case basis.

No. No, they can't. Will this stop them from throwing their hypocritical pity parties? No. No, it won't.

 

[mudwhistle]

ive not seen congressmen like that, california girl. most of the time they present policies that are based on what they and their party thinks is the best way to do things... more like your 'in their best interest' model. these party and candidate positions are based on the combined effect of voter mandate and the financial backing that will help them secure it... also some kind of cohesion which parties bring to national politics. (for better/worse)

there's not much referendum power in national politics. there's been several elections where an issue of concern to me was not slated, or candidates all seemed like idiots (see 2004 presidency race). presuming from your name you could relate: the california referendum style is much more populist, but i dont feel that has had the best results. the people want to screw themselves over in the booths every few years with some proposition.

'populist' and 'conservative' dont mix in my mind, and national politics needs to have a component of conservatism. every car need brakes. campaign reform has hurt the conservatives. i think republicans embarrass themselves when forced to move to a populist base; i wont associate with the people that theyve come up with. its all reflected in their candidates and rhetoric. if conservatives want to usher a reagan age back into place, they'd have to get comfortable with the business lobbies who put the head on the shoulders of the party in the early 80s.

Politicians are beholding to their money source. They rarely consider what is best for us. They mostly take their own personal best interests into account. That is the problem...and you seem to just wave it off like it's not a problem worth addressing.

Most of the deals Obama is using to get the votes he needs are exemptions from the conditions of the bill. Now what exactly does that say about this piece of shit bill I ask you?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

That is our form of government, and it has been since the beginning.

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were to live in a "constitutional republic".

Tell it to James Madison

The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[5] In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[6],

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[1] Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.