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

[mudwhistle]

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?????

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

 

[California Girl]

It is never ok. It is totally unacceptable. Congress critters are supposed to represent their constituents.... Note: 'Represent'.... Represent does not mean vote in our best interests, or vote their own conscience... it mean they vote according to how the majority of their constituents want. Not their 'special interests', not any other way.... Just 'represent' their constituents.

 

[G.T.]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

You have a vote, do you not? The answer is quite simple. 'We, the People' should vote out each and every corrupt asshole in Washington. And keep voting them out every damned time we find out about corruption - no matter which side. Eventually, like the dogs that they are, they will learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[pete]

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

 

[pete]

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?

 

[California Girl]

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

That depends on what the bribe is, from who and to whom.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You have a vote, do you not? The answer is quite simple. 'We, the People' should vote out each and every corrupt asshole in Washington. And keep voting them out every damned time we find out about corruption - no matter which side. Eventually, like the dogs that they are, they will learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.

That's impossible. People lobby in their own interests, and by Senators and Congressman discontinuing the practice of bending over for "special interest groups," they are, essentially biting the hand that feeds them both ways. There's no fix.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

You have a vote, do you not? The answer is quite simple. 'We, the People' should vote out each and every corrupt asshole in Washington. And keep voting them out every damned time we find out about corruption - no matter which side. Eventually, like the dogs that they are, they will learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.

That's impossible. People lobby in their own interests, and by Senators and Congressman discontinuing the practice of bending over for "special interest groups," they are, essentially biting the hand that feeds them both ways. There's no fix.

It is attitudes like this that led us to this mess. People who vote for a 'D' or an 'R' - knowing that they are corrupt and not 'representing' their constituents but vote for them anyway are what is wrong with this country.

 

[G.T.]

It is attitudes like this that led us to this mess. People who vote for a 'D' or an 'R' - knowing that they are corrupt and not 'representing' their constituents but vote for them anyway are what is wrong with this country.

Umm, the groups lobbying are their constituents, also. I don't see how you can simply and conveniently ignore that. Being pie in the sky isn't going to solve such a dramatic problem. It's not an attitude, it's an observed reality.

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[Joe Steel]

It is never ok. It is totally unacceptable. Congress critters are supposed to represent their constituents.... Note: 'Represent'.... Represent does not mean vote in our best interests, or vote their own conscience... it mean they vote according to how the majority of their constituents want. Not their 'special interests', not any other way.... Just 'represent' their constituents.

Nonsense. That's just wrong. In a republic, the People elect representatives who will act in their name without any direction. The People express their will with their votes not their phone calls.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

You have a vote, do you not? The answer is quite simple. 'We, the People' should vote out each and every corrupt asshole in Washington. And keep voting them out every damned time we find out about corruption - no matter which side. Eventually, like the dogs that they are, they will learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.

Sure you can do that but it takes time. Bags of money are much faster.

 

[antagon]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[Joe Steel]

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?

Good point. Maybe he should try a "constitutional" defense.

 

[Ravi]

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.

muddy brought up your hero Bush.

And yes, it was the same thing.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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