2008 Woodie Awards
The infamous lobbyist who was featured on the cover of Time magazine as “the man who bought Washington” is set to begin his nearly six year sentence on November 15. Although Jack Abramoff’s new title – Federal inmate 27593-112 – is decidedly less arresting (pun intended) than the one that Time bestowed, it is doubtful that this influential public figure will fade away and become just another number in America’s prison system. It should come as no surprise that Abramoff’s notoriety exerted a tangible effect on several midterm elections (chief among them, Montana’s senate race) and it is likely that his criminal activities ultimately played a key role in tipping the congressional balance of power. But despite everything that has happened, Abramoff is not without friends in the political sphere. Over 100 prominent political allies wrote to the sentencing judge asking for leniency on Abramoff’s behalf. Their efforts were not in vain as the 5 year 10 month sentence that Abramoff received was the minimum amount permitted under the law. During the upcoming jail time, the ex-lobbyist will likely continue to play an important role in political affairs given that he is expected to testify in more investigations pertaining to federal lobbying. One has to wonder if some politicians are afraid that new information will give rise to further scandals that could play a similar role in 2008.
This is hilarious. What a set of lame ideas for slogans. Y’know, the moment I realized in my gut that Kerry wasn’t going to win was when I learned that his message (yes, folks, he did apparently have one) was going to be ‘Stronger at Home, Respect in the World.’ And I thought to myself: I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anything more innane. And now they’re doing it all over again. Well, what else should we expect from the Democratic Party, given how wedded it is to failure? I wish the Party had anticipated what Dean said this weekend and made their message this simple:
“We’re tired of the ayatollahs of the right-wing. Let’s fight for freedom in America.”
Wussy liberalism is a path to irrelevance. Sadly, I think comments like these come out of a general ignorance of the Bolton story itself. Guest-blogging at Josh’s place in late August, Steve Clemons posted a leaked copy of John Bolton’s personal modifications as representative of the US’ view on the draft document for the Millenium Summit this past September. Anyone who has even a shred of decency in them has to be grossly offended by Bolton’s extremist views. I’ll spare making you go through all fourty pages (though you should), but page 2 by itself proves my point. Point 12 under the “Values and Principles” section was intended to say:
We reaffirm that gender equality and the promotion and protection of the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in particular women and children, are essential to advance development, peace and security. We are committed to creating a world fit for future generations, which takes into account the best interests of the child.
Bolton wanted to delete the phrase “in particular women and children.”
When he was not chasing women down hotel hallways screaming like a maniac, John Bolton tries to undermine America’s commitment to human rights and fundamental values of gender equality. There’s no need to be “respectful” of people who very clearly assault basic standards of human decency- and in both his personal and professional life, Bolton has proven himself that type of person. Conservatives often stress that there are moral absolutes, and that liberals often behave relativistically, and that has often been true. I do wish liberals would recover the legacies of King and Gandhi, both of whom refused to bend in the face of what they knew was clearly repulsive behavior. We should call immorality by its name.
We certainly should fight “intolerance,” and that means standing up to thugs like John Bolton wherever they choose to rear their ugly heads. Tolerance is a two-way street, and when there’s no chance that the other side is interested in being an equal partner, we need to take Professor Wilentz’s advice and “fight like hell” against it. As Congressman John Lewis reminded students at the Campus Progress conference this summer, “you need to get in the way” against the people now in power. Those Yale students were ‘getting in the way’ in the small way they could, by standing up to a bully. We should be applauding them, rather than castigating them out of a misguided allegiance to “politeness,” which I’m sorry to say, my colleague Robby Braun appears to hold. God knows it’s time for a little impolitness in this country.
Lord knows I’ve been critical of the DLC’ers, but they’re just spot on here:
. . . tempting as it is to dwell on the possibility that this self-appointed moral arbiter of the nation could soon be strolling the halls not of Congress but of a Texas correctional facility, we urge Democrats to keep focused on a much bigger issue: the systemic pattern of corruption, cronyism, influence-peddling, and partisan intimidation in Washington. DeLay is clearly a major ink-spot in that pattern; even if he evades imprisonment on the Texas charges, let’s remember that the object of the fundraising effort in question was The Hammer’s obsessive campaign to launch a re-redistricting of U.S. House seats to buttress his power in the Capitol.
Irrespective of what you think of the nitty-gritty details of some of the DLC’s proposed reforms, the assessment of what DeLay’s indictment really means couldn’t be more accurate.
Here’s why: because we need senators who are going to do a better job of vetting people than Joe did.
Princeton’s congressman Rush Holt is guest-blogging this week at TPMCafe.
For once, it looks like the Democrats are showing some spine. Reid nails it.
The exception here is Mary Landrieu. She’s proven herself to be a disgrace to the United States Senate. Senators are supposed to advocate for their constituents when the federal government screws up (actually, “screw-up” isn’t the right word, but the appropriate one is inappropriate for this site). Two Louisiana elected officials have done their job here: David Vitter and Ray Nagin. If Mary Landrieu is genuinely “not angry at anyone,” then she should be kicked out of the Senate, because her constiutents are sure as heck furious at what’s transpired thus far.
David Rossie on the Iraq war and the politics of America’s military.
I can’t imagine why any young person would join with them. They never do anything interesting. It’s really a lot cooler to be a Young / College Republican.
As Laura points out, he may not be representing what is actually the matter with Kansas very well.
Honestly, I don’t understand why the Campaign-for-America’s-Future variety Democrats don’t think that ’swing’ voters can be appealed to on social values issues. As I’ve tried to make clear, I’m not opposed to the populist message as such; what I do disagree with is the position that many have taken that populism is the only way to win electoral majorities, and that Democratic candidates who talk about social issues lose. I think you’d be surprised to hear that on many core questions of ‘belief,’ most Americans are with us, not against us. They want the liberty to control their own bodies even if they disagree with some things other people do to themselves; they have reasonable expectations for what government can- and can’t- do to assist them; they believe strongly in helping the poor; and, most surprisingly, they generally recognize the right of sexual minorities to form legally-recognized unions.
So what’s the matter here?
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
